A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mohamed El Baradei says war drums beating for Iran like they did in the run up to the Iraq war (Washington Times)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 8th 07, 10:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval,alt.military,us.military,us.military.national-guard,us.military.navy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Mohamed El Baradei says war drums beating for Iran like they did in the run up to the Iraq war (Washington Times)

C-SPAN viewer Call for GAO head David Walker which mentioned Walt and
Mearsheimer book

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot....gn-policy.html

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/2KHCED

CBS '60 Minutes' refusing to do a segment about the Mearsheimer/Walt
book:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=77703


Mohamed El Baradei says war drums beating for Iran like they did in
the run up to the Iraq war (Washington Times)

Article published Sep 8, 2007
Nuke watchdog defends Iran deal
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...109080042/1001
September 8, 2007

By David R. Sands - The United Nations' top nuclear cop yesterday
slammed critics of a new inspection deal with Iran as "back-seat
drivers" trying to justify a war with Tehran in the same way they
cleared a path for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the nuclear watchdog
International Atomic Energy Agency, named no names in a briefing for
reporters at the IAEA's headquarters in Vienna, Austria. But his harsh
words reflected the depth of suspicion and distrust between the
Egyptian diplomat and critics in the United States, both inside and
outside the Bush administration.

Pleading for time to allow a new Iranian inspection plan to work, Mr.
ElBaradei said, "I hear war drums that are basically saying that the
solution is to bomb Iran. It makes me shudder because some of the
rhetoric is a reminder" of the run-up to the Iraq war.

"There have been back-seat drivers putting in their five cents saying
this is not a good working arrangement," he said, according to an
account by the Reuters news agency.

"I tell them: Please, leave the driving to us and we will let you know
where we are in November."

The official U.S. response to the IAEA chief's comments was measured,
but U.S. officials also made it clear that Iran must do far more than
meet the IAEA's goals to put to rest questions about its suspect
nuclear programs.

"I would certainly hope that [Mr. ElBaradei's] comments would not
refer to the United States, because they certainly wouldn't be true,"
State Department spokesman Tom Casey said.

Mr. Casey and the U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, said
they back the IAEA's efforts to clear up "historical" questions about
Iran's secret nuclear programs. But they added that the United States
and its allies still demand that Iran suspend key activities, such as
uranium enrichment, or face new international sanctions.

Mr. Schulte said late last month that the IAEA inspection agreement
with Tehran has "real limitations" because key military and
manufacturing sites inside the Islamic republic would not be covered.

Mr. ElBaradei has U.S. critics outside the Bush administration as
well. A Washington Post editorial this week dubbed him a "rogue
regulator" who is "undermining" the U.S.-led effort to curb Iran's
nuclear programs.

Yesterday, Mr. ElBaradei said the U.S. press was rushing to discredit
him.

"If you look at some of the American newspapers today, there is a
coordinated, orchestrated campaign to undermine the process, undermine
the agency, undermine me," Reuters quoted him as saying.

The Bush administration and Mr. ElBaradei had some tense exchanges
before the Iraq war over the extent of dictator Saddam Hussein's
nuclear weapons programs. The IAEA could not verify U.S. claims of a
major Iraqi nuclear effort, and postwar analyses largely upheld the
U.N. agency's work.

The United States briefly tried to block Mr. Elbaradei's reappointment
to the IAEA post in 2005, but found no support from the nearly three
dozen nations that sit on the Vienna agency's board.

Meeting with a small group of reporters in Vienna yesterday, Mr.
ElBaradei said his inspectors have uncovered little so far to back up
charges Iran has developed a military nuclear capability. Iranian
officials say their program is designed for peaceful energy uses.

"We have not seen any weaponization of their program, nor have we
received any information to that effect - no smoking gun or
information from intelligence," Mr. ElBaradei said.

Mr. ElBaradei suggested yesterday that critics should give his
inspectors until the end of the year to do their work.

"This is a reasonable time in our view to resolve a number of complex
issues," he said.

But Jacqueline Shire and David Albright, nuclear specialists at the
private Washington-based Institute for Science and International
Security, said in an Aug. 30 report that the IAEA inspection deal
signed with Iran on Aug. 27 is "limited in scope" in a number of key
areas.

"The IAEA has also not been able to determine whether Iran has
undeclared nuclear facilities," they wrote. "Iran may be installing
centrifuges at a secret, undeclared plant."

This article is based in part on wire service reports.

--------------------------------------------------------------

A Sept. rollout for Iran war



by David Isenberg
Washington (UPI) Sept. 5, 2007

http://www.upi.com/International_Sec...iran_war/3651/

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card once famously said of the
administration's 2002 campaign to get support for the invasion of
Iraq, ''From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new
products in August.''
Now August is behind us, and -- right on schedule -- marketers both in
the White House and among their supporters outside are rolling out
their newest product, a public relations blitz urging a U.S. military
adventure in Iran.
Consider the recent speech by President Bush to the American Legion.
In it he said, "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to
nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for
instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.
"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that
is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the
world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions.
"We will confront this danger before it is too late," he concluded.
Of course, President Bush's speech, not for the first time, stood in
180 degree contrast to reality.
The day before, while making public the recently completed agreement
with Iran regarding its nuclear program, Olli Heinonen, deputy
director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said, "We have in
front of us an agreed work plan. We agreed on modalities on how to
implement it. We have a timeline for the implementation."
But however distorted their relationship to reality, Bush's words have
impact.
"I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront
Tehran's murderous activities," he said. Shortly thereafter, the U.S.
military in Iraq arrested and detained eight Iranian energy experts
meeting in Baghdad with the Iraqi government, handcuffing,
blindfolding and interrogating them.
They were only released when the Iraqi government protested.
On Sept. 10 the American Enterprise Institute, a sort of
neoconservative administration-in-waiting, will debut the newest book
by its "Freedom Scholar" Michael Ledeen, one of the foremost
proponents of the military adventure in Iraq.
Titled "The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots' Quest for
Destruction," it is a rehash of neocon arguments for "regime change"
-- by military force, if necessary -- in Tehran. Although he calls for
supporting and funding the regime's domestic opposition, Ledeen
concludes that this "administration or the next will likely face a
terrible choice: appease a nuclear Iran, or bomb it before their
atomic weapons are ready to go."
Jim Lobe, the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service
renowned for his coverage of the neoconservative influence in the Bush
administration, notes that the rollout of Ledeen's book comes just
four days after AEI will launch its Sept. 6 "All or Nothing" campaign
to "save the surge" in Iraq. He wrote:
"The chronological juxtaposition of the Surge panel Sept. 6 and the
rollout of Ledeen's book Sept. 10 underlines the balance that AEI and
other hawks (including the vice president's office) are trying to
achieve between their two top priorities at the moment -- sustaining
the surge well into next year and rallying Congress and the public
behind an attack on Iran before the end of Bush's term, if by then
"diplomacy" does not achieve the desired results of 1) freezing its
nuclear program and/or 2) halting Tehran's support for its Shia allies
(including the al-Maliki government) in Iraq."
Meanwhile, Kimberly Kagan, who directs the Institute for the Study of
War, has written a lengthy report titled "Iran's Proxy War Against the
United States and the Iraqi Government" that was posted on the Web
site of neoconservative organ the Weekly Standard.
Kagan is the wife of Frederick Kagan, an AEI scholar and one of the
intellectual architects of the Iraq surge. She is also listed as one
of the participants in her husband's research team that came up with
the idea for the surge in the first place.
Of course, there are also exceptions to the "don't do rollouts until
after Labor Day" strategy.
One was at the end of July, when the State Department unveiled a
series of arms sales in the region to contain Iran. In her July 30
announcement of the potential sale of $20 billion in arms to Saudi
Arabia and the other five members of the Gulf Cooperation Council,
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the arms will "support a
broader strategy to counter the negative influences of al-Qaida,
Hezbollah, Syria and Iran."
However, the exact nature of the Iranian threat or how these U.S.
weapons transfers will counter it was never spelled out.
The other was in August when the Senate unanimously passed a
resolution sponsored by Sen. Lieberman, I-Conn., accusing Iran of acts
of war against the United States -- a resolution with no purpose other
than to strengthen the case for war against Tehran.
A third was the White House decision to designate at least elements of
Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization, using
the president's authority under a September 2001 executive order.
Robert Baer, a former high-ranking CIA field officer in the Middle
East, wrote recently in Time Magazine that:
"Reports that the Bush administration will put Iran's Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps on the terrorism list can be read in one of
two ways: It's either more bluster or, ominously, a wind-up for a
strike on Iran. Officials I talk to in Washington vote for a hit on
the IRGC, maybe within the next six months."
(David Isenberg is a senior analyst with the British American Security
Information Council. He is also a member of the Coalition for a
Realistic Foreign Policy, an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute,
contributor to the Straus Military Reform Project, a research fellow
at the Independent Institute, and a U.S. Navy veteran. The views
expressed are his own.)
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written
by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important
issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United
Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum,
original submissions are invited.)
Community



----------------------------------------------------------


'We Are Moving Rapidly Towards an Abyss'

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle18330.htm

Spiegel Interview With Mohamed El Baradei
09/07/07 "Spiegel" -- 09/03/07 -- United Nations chief weapons
inspector Mohamed ElBaradei spoke to SPIEGEL about Iran's last chance
to convince the world of the peaceful nature of its nuclear program,
his problems with the US government and his fear of nuclear weapons
falling into the hands of terrorists.
SPIEGEL: Mr. ElBaradei, the international community suspects that Iran
aims to build nuclear weapons. Tehran denies this. Have we now reached
the decisive phase in which we will finally get an answer to this
central question of world politics?
Mohamed ElBaradei: Yes. The next few months will be crucial for the
overall situation in the Middle East. Whether we move in the direction
of escalation or in the direction of a peaceful solution.
SPIEGEL: You have been given a central role. The new report on Iran by
your International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) could lead to more
severe sanctions against Tehran.
ElBaradei: The international community will have to make that
decision. We can only deliver the facts and our assessment of the
situation. There are hopeful and positive signs. For the first time,
we have agreed, with the Iranians, to a sort of roadmap, a schedule,
if you will, for clarifying the outstanding issues. We should know by
November, or December at the latest, whether the Iranians will keep
their promises. If they don't, Tehran will have missed a great
opportunity -- possibly the last one.
SPIEGEL: The US government has described Iran's new willingness to
cooperate as a transparent attempt to distract from its true
intentions and from its continued development of the capabilities to
produce a nuclear weapon. Is the IAEA too gullible?

ElBaradei: I am familiar with these accusations. They are completely
untrue. It's not possible to manipulate us. We are not nave and we do
not take sides. Our new Iran report also shows that the Iranian
government is not adhering to the requirements set forth by the UN,
which demanded an immediate stop to uranium enrichment.
SPIEGEL: It is a proven fact that Tehran has spent years trying to
keep the international community in the dark over important aspects of
its nuclear program.
ElBaradei: That's right.
SPIEGEL: Your deputy, Olli Heinonen, who negotiated with the Iranians,
is now talking about a breakthrough, a "milestone." Given Iran's
history, wouldn't a healthy dose of suspicion be appropriate?
ElBaradei: Obviously we are all pushing for the same strategic goal:
That Iran should not get nuclear weapons. We consistently searched for
evidence that Iran intends to build nuclear weapons. We found
suspicious signs, but no smoking gun. We could now make some progress
in setting aside these suspicions by thoroughly inspecting the Iranian
facilities and learning details about their history.
SPIEGEL: What do you expect from Tehran?
ElBaradei: We expect information about the scope and nature of its
uranium enrichment program and its statements about certain suspicious
studies we have. The most decisive element in our assessment will be
whether Iran cooperates with us completely and actively.
SPIEGEL: It appears that Iran has fewer centrifuges up and running
than experts had assumed until recently. Some say there are
substantially fewer than 3,000, which is considered the minimum to
produce enough material for a bomb within one year. Have the
scientists encountered problems with the technology, or is the
surprisingly low number a sign of political accommodation?
ElBaradei: Both possibilities are valid. My gut feeling tells me that
Iran has responded positively to my repeated demands that it scale
back the program.
SPIEGEL: Aren't there other questions where you are still in the
dark?

ElBaradei: No. We can check many things precisely. I am not willing to
state definitively whether Iran is following up its promises with
actions. I just don't want to lose the opportunity to find out for
myself. The UN sanctions against Tehran will remain in place in the
interim. It's important to exert pressure. But in addition to
sanctions we must also have incentives.
SPIEGEL: Now, you believe, the time has come...
ElBaradei: ...to encourage Iran to take a new direction. Yes, that's
my opinion. If someone comes to me and says, I want to work with you
now, then I have to examine his offer to make sure it has substance.
We must see all the documents, be able to talk to anyone and have
unfettered access to all facilities. We are talking about two or three
months. Then we'll know more.
SPIEGEL: You are essentially asking for a time out. The Bush
administration sees the issue quite differently. It wants to turn up
the heat on the pressure cooker.
ElBaradei: Careful! If we turn up the heat too high the pot could
explode around our ears.
SPIEGEL: Washington wants to place the Revolutionary Guards -- an
important and, in the case of nuclear policy, decisive element of the
Iranian power structure -- on a list of terrorist organizations. The
Bush administration has called on foreign banks to cancel their
dealings with Iran. Gregory Schulte, the American envoy to the IAEA,
has made it clear that the US government wants to see tougher
sanctions. Do you believe that the Russians and the Chinese will vote
for more severe sanctions in the UN Security Council once they see the
new IAEA report?
ElBaradei: We at the IAEA do not make these political decisions.

SPIEGEL: But you would consider tighter sanctions to be
counterproductive?
ElBaradei: I don't make a secret of that. You can only set up so many
roadmaps. If there is no basis for trust, all that effort is in vain.
Sanctions alone will not produce a lasting solution. What we need in
the Middle East is not more weapons, but better educational
opportunities and more security for people. We should remind ourselves
every day of the terrible situation of Iraq's civilians. An
improvement in the catastrophic situation in Baghdad, with its tens of
thousands of civilian casualties, can only be achieved through
political measures -- through concrete improvement of the population's
living conditions and through opportunities for education and jobs.
And, most of all, by politically involving the neighboring countries.
SPIEGEL: The Iranian leadership insists on its right to enrich
uranium, and every country that has signed the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is entitled to this right, at least
formally.

ElBaradei: There are concrete suspicions against Iran. That's why I
believe that Iran has temporarily forfeited this right, and that it
will have to regain it with the international community through
confidence-building measures. On the other hand, those in the West
must realize that if all they expect is confrontation, they might as
well forget dialogue -- and they should not be surprised if the other
side seeks retribution.
SPIEGEL: Some politicians and senior military leaders in Israel, as
well as in the United States, are seriously considering an attack on
Iranian nuclear facilities. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has also
threatened to bomb the facilities. What do you think about the
"military option?"
ElBaradei: Nothing at all. Perhaps a large part of the Iranian
facilities could in fact be destroyed. But something like that would
trigger a terrible conflagration in the region, and it would certainly
strengthen the positions of those in Tehran who favor the development
of a nuclear bomb. After presumably withdrawing from the NPT, they
would then pursue such a program without any monitoring whatsoever.
The already deep conflicts between the Islamic world and the West
would explode. We need the opposite: an intensive dialogue involving
all major players, the Europeans and especially the United States.
SPIEGEL: Iran is your most difficult problem child, but certainly not
the only one. North Korea...
ElBaradei: ...was, until recently, seen as equally threatening. I am a
long way from declaring all concerns over Pyongyang's nuclear program
resolved. But the development there is positive. The Yongbyon reactor,
which is the most important one when it comes to bomb production, has
been taken offline under IAEA supervision. This is all the result of
intensive negotiations conducted with the regime by the major powers
and neighboring countries.
SPIEGEL: One could see it that way. But one could also say that
dictator Kim Jong Il expelled your inspectors, violated his
obligations, tested a bomb and thereby blackmailed the international
community.
ElBaradei: I am not defending the regime in North Korea, just as the
issue is not a ranking of governments that are more or less acceptable
to me. But in Pyongyang the desire to obtain the ultimate weapon also
arose from a feeling of insecurity and the idea that outside forces
planned to topple the regime, as well as the desire for security
guarantees. The outcome of the six-party talks with North Korea was
decisive. After five years of talking to each other, it remains
indisputable that dialogue brought an easing of tensions and, once its
nuclear arsenal has been completely eliminated, will bring Pyongyang
back into the fold of the IAEA. This could succeed through political
pressure, combined with economic incentives.
SPIEGEL: Isn't this sending the wrong message to the world's despotic
rulers -- acquire nuclear weapons or seriously threaten to develop a
nuclear weapons program and you'll be taken seriously?
ElBaradei: There is that risk. But, on the other hand, in order to
seem credible to the nuclear wannabe states we must demand steps
toward nuclear disarmament from those who have nuclear weapons -- an
obligation that is stipulated in the nonproliferation treaty but is
not complied with. I deplore this two-faced approach. If practically
all nuclear powers are modernizing instead of reducing their arsenals,
how can we argue with the non-nuclear states?
SPIEGEL: You visited North Korea in March when you believed that
things had taken a decisive turn for the better. Do you see yourself
-- under similar conditions -- traveling to Tehran toward the end of
the year?
ElBaradei: I would have nothing against traveling to Tehran tomorrow.
But while the North Koreans have complied with the UN's wishes and are
being rewarded for this positive behavior, I currently see the
Iranians in a sort of trial period -- with an uncertain outcome.
SPIEGEL: Do you have a good feeling about the fact that the French
president is putting a nuclear reactor in the desert for Libya's
ruler?
ElBaradei: I am not familiar with the details of the deal, and whether
I like or trust Moammar Gadhafi is irrelevant in this context. Libya
is a member of the IAEA, and we will be able to monitor the reactor.
SPIEGEL: What apparently cannot be monitored or can only be monitored
highly inadequately is the nuclear black market. It was just revealed
that China has "lost" eight kilograms of weapons-grade uranium.
Enriched uranium also keeps turning up in the states that emerged from
the bankrupt Soviet Union.
ElBaradei: Yes, that is unfortunately the case.

SPIEGEL: There is already speculation that al-Qaida is seeking to
acquire nuclear weapons. Do you think there is a real risk that
terrorists will obtain the ultimate weapon?
ElBaradei: That's my greatest concern, a horror scenario. I'm not
thinking about a nuclear weapon. No terrorist organization has the
necessary know-how or potential to acquire these weapons. But a small,
so-called dirty bomb containing radioactive material, detonated
somewhere in a major city, could cost human lives and set off massive
terror with serious economic consequences. Sometimes I think it's a
miracle that it hasn't happened yet. I pray that it remains that way.
SPIEGEL: You are in a conflicting situation. The IAEA's job is not
just to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and inspect nuclear
facilities, but also to promote the civilian use of nuclear energy.
However, nuclear power plants are generally considered dangerous, and
there is still no way to permanently store radioactive waste.
ElBaradei: Every technology comes with a residual risk. It's very low
in modern nuclear power plants. I know that some countries have a
psychological problem with nuclear power...

SPIEGEL: ...the Germans, for example, are very skeptical, and the
government has plans to begin getting out of nuclear energy. In your
opinion, should we continue to rely on nuclear power, especially in
light of such incidents as the recent earthquake in Japan that
affected the world's largest nuclear power plant?
ElBaradei: We are monitoring the situation there. The Japanese reactor
shut itself down automatically, thereby demonstrating its capacity for
functioning correctly in an emergency. But I cannot impose rules on
any country. You in Germany apparently have the option of structuring
your energy mix largely as you please. For other nations, particularly
in the Third World, new energy sources are critical to survival. Look
at India. The only way the more than 300 million Indians who live on
less than $1 a day can significantly improve their standard of living
is through the rapid growth in environmentally safe energy.
SPIEGEL: India never joined the NPT, and it tested a nuclear weapon in
1998. The IAEA is not even allowed to inspect India's civilian plants,
not to mention its military ones. And yet the United States now wants
to supply Delhi with new nuclear technology and fuel. Why didn't you
object to this deal?
ElBaradei: I was even in favor of it. I am not a purist or a dreamer.
India became a nuclear power, and it was ostracized internationally
for a time as a result. This no longer makes any sense. We would
consider it progress if we could monitor India's civilian nuclear
power plants in the future, and we will likely begin negotiations on
this issue with Delhi soon, provided the deal isn't cancelled as a
result of domestic political disagreements first.
SPIEGEL: You have headed the IAEA for 10 years now. Has your job
become easier or more difficult over the years?
ElBaradei: More difficult. We pay completely inadequate attention to
the important threats, the inhuman living conditions of billions of
people, climate change and the potential for nuclear holocaust. We
stand at a crossroads, and we are moving rapidly toward an abyss.
There are currently 27,000 nuclear warheads in the world. If we don't
change our way of thinking, John F. Kennedy's prediction that there
would be 20 nuclear powers will soon come true. And with each new
player and each new weapon, the risk of a planned or accidental
nuclear war increases.
SPIEGEL: What would you like to see as your legacy?

ElBaradei: I am in favor of a multinational procedure in matters of
uranium enrichment and reprocessing. Ultimately, no single country
should be in a position to independently produce nuclear material.
SPIEGEL: Now you must be dreaming.
ElBaradei: We must never forget that the dispute over nuclear weapons
is not a game, but deadly serious. It can easily lead to a catastrophe
and jeopardize the basis for the existence of all mankind. We need an
international system of security guarantees, in which no country
depends on nuclear weapons. We cannot wait any longer for this to
happen. Not a day longer.
SPIEGEL: Mr. ElBaradei, thank you for this interview.
The interview was conducted by Dieter Bednarz and Erich Follath
ElBaradei, 65, an Egyptian diplomat with a law degree from New York
University, has been the Director General of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) since 1997. Working on behalf of the UN,
Baradei's job is to prevent the further proliferation of nuclear
weapons.
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comments (17) Comment (0)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

JINSA/PNAC associated Cheney would probably still have US attack Iran
for AEI if even if we enter another recession or worse). I think I am
going to pack it in as well. There is no hope left. Especially when
the media won't even report the truth (as conveyed in the Mearsheimer/
Walt book) to a majority of Americans beyond C-SPAN (see the following
URL) and NPR and a book review or two:


http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78398

Ads
  #2  
Old September 9th 07, 05:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval,alt.military,us.military,us.military.national-guard,us.military.navy
Einar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Mohamed El Baradei says war drums beating for Iran like they did in the run up to the Iraq war (Washington Times)


wrote:
C-SPAN viewer Call for GAO head David Walker which mentioned Walt and
Mearsheimer book

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot....gn-policy.html

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/2KHCED

CBS '60 Minutes' refusing to do a segment about the Mearsheimer/Walt
book:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=77703


Mohamed El Baradei says war drums beating for Iran like they did in
the run up to the Iraq war (Washington Times)

Article published Sep 8, 2007
Nuke watchdog defends Iran deal
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...109080042/1001
September 8, 2007

By David R. Sands - The United Nations' top nuclear cop yesterday
slammed critics of a new inspection deal with Iran as "back-seat
drivers" trying to justify a war with Tehran in the same way they
cleared a path for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the nuclear watchdog
International Atomic Energy Agency, named no names in a briefing for
reporters at the IAEA's headquarters in Vienna, Austria. But his harsh
words reflected the depth of suspicion and distrust between the
Egyptian diplomat and critics in the United States, both inside and
outside the Bush administration.

Pleading for time to allow a new Iranian inspection plan to work, Mr.
ElBaradei said, "I hear war drums that are basically saying that the
solution is to bomb Iran. It makes me shudder because some of the
rhetoric is a reminder" of the run-up to the Iraq war.

"There have been back-seat drivers putting in their five cents saying
this is not a good working arrangement," he said, according to an
account by the Reuters news agency.

"I tell them: Please, leave the driving to us and we will let you know
where we are in November."

The official U.S. response to the IAEA chief's comments was measured,
but U.S. officials also made it clear that Iran must do far more than
meet the IAEA's goals to put to rest questions about its suspect
nuclear programs.

"I would certainly hope that [Mr. ElBaradei's] comments would not
refer to the United States, because they certainly wouldn't be true,"
State Department spokesman Tom Casey said.

Mr. Casey and the U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, said
they back the IAEA's efforts to clear up "historical" questions about
Iran's secret nuclear programs. But they added that the United States
and its allies still demand that Iran suspend key activities, such as
uranium enrichment, or face new international sanctions.

Mr. Schulte said late last month that the IAEA inspection agreement
with Tehran has "real limitations" because key military and
manufacturing sites inside the Islamic republic would not be covered.

Mr. ElBaradei has U.S. critics outside the Bush administration as
well. A Washington Post editorial this week dubbed him a "rogue
regulator" who is "undermining" the U.S.-led effort to curb Iran's
nuclear programs.

Yesterday, Mr. ElBaradei said the U.S. press was rushing to discredit
him.

"If you look at some of the American newspapers today, there is a
coordinated, orchestrated campaign to undermine the process, undermine
the agency, undermine me," Reuters quoted him as saying.

The Bush administration and Mr. ElBaradei had some tense exchanges
before the Iraq war over the extent of dictator Saddam Hussein's
nuclear weapons programs. The IAEA could not verify U.S. claims of a
major Iraqi nuclear effort, and postwar analyses largely upheld the
U.N. agency's work.

The United States briefly tried to block Mr. Elbaradei's reappointment
to the IAEA post in 2005, but found no support from the nearly three
dozen nations that sit on the Vienna agency's board.

Meeting with a small group of reporters in Vienna yesterday, Mr.
ElBaradei said his inspectors have uncovered little so far to back up
charges Iran has developed a military nuclear capability. Iranian
officials say their program is designed for peaceful energy uses.

"We have not seen any weaponization of their program, nor have we
received any information to that effect - no smoking gun or
information from intelligence," Mr. ElBaradei said.

Mr. ElBaradei suggested yesterday that critics should give his
inspectors until the end of the year to do their work.

"This is a reasonable time in our view to resolve a number of complex
issues," he said.

But Jacqueline Shire and David Albright, nuclear specialists at the
private Washington-based Institute for Science and International
Security, said in an Aug. 30 report that the IAEA inspection deal
signed with Iran on Aug. 27 is "limited in scope" in a number of key
areas.

"The IAEA has also not been able to determine whether Iran has
undeclared nuclear facilities," they wrote. "Iran may be installing
centrifuges at a secret, undeclared plant."

This article is based in part on wire service reports.

--------------------------------------------------------------

A Sept. rollout for Iran war



by David Isenberg
Washington (UPI) Sept. 5, 2007

http://www.upi.com/International_Sec...iran_war/3651/

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card once famously said of the
administration's 2002 campaign to get support for the invasion of
Iraq, ''From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new
products in August.''
Now August is behind us, and -- right on schedule -- marketers both in
the White House and among their supporters outside are rolling out
their newest product, a public relations blitz urging a U.S. military
adventure in Iran.
Consider the recent speech by President Bush to the American Legion.
In it he said, "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to
nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for
instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.
"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that
is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the
world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions.
"We will confront this danger before it is too late," he concluded.
Of course, President Bush's speech, not for the first time, stood in
180 degree contrast to reality.
The day before, while making public the recently completed agreement
with Iran regarding its nuclear program, Olli Heinonen, deputy
director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said, "We have in
front of us an agreed work plan. We agreed on modalities on how to
implement it. We have a timeline for the implementation."
But however distorted their relationship to reality, Bush's words have
impact.
"I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront
Tehran's murderous activities," he said. Shortly thereafter, the U.S.
military in Iraq arrested and detained eight Iranian energy experts
meeting in Baghdad with the Iraqi government, handcuffing,
blindfolding and interrogating them.
They were only released when the Iraqi government protested.
On Sept. 10 the American Enterprise Institute, a sort of
neoconservative administration-in-waiting, will debut the newest book
by its "Freedom Scholar" Michael Ledeen, one of the foremost
proponents of the military adventure in Iraq.
Titled "The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots' Quest for
Destruction," it is a rehash of neocon arguments for "regime change"
-- by military force, if necessary -- in Tehran. Although he calls for
supporting and funding the regime's domestic opposition, Ledeen
concludes that this "administration or the next will likely face a
terrible choice: appease a nuclear Iran, or bomb it before their
atomic weapons are ready to go."
Jim Lobe, the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service
renowned for his coverage of the neoconservative influence in the Bush
administration, notes that the rollout of Ledeen's book comes just
four days after AEI will launch its Sept. 6 "All or Nothing" campaign
to "save the surge" in Iraq. He wrote:
"The chronological juxtaposition of the Surge panel Sept. 6 and the
rollout of Ledeen's book Sept. 10 underlines the balance that AEI and
other hawks (including the vice president's office) are trying to
achieve between their two top priorities at the moment -- sustaining
the surge well into next year and rallying Congress and the public
behind an attack on Iran before the end of Bush's term, if by then
"diplomacy" does not achieve the desired results of 1) freezing its
nuclear program and/or 2) halting Tehran's support for its Shia allies
(including the al-Maliki government) in Iraq."
Meanwhile, Kimberly Kagan, who directs the Institute for the Study of
War, has written a lengthy report titled "Iran's Proxy War Against the
United States and the Iraqi Government" that was posted on the Web
site of neoconservative organ the Weekly Standard.
Kagan is the wife of Frederick Kagan, an AEI scholar and one of the
intellectual architects of the Iraq surge. She is also listed as one
of the participants in her husband's research team that came up with
the idea for the surge in the first place.
Of course, there are also exceptions to the "don't do rollouts until
after Labor Day" strategy.
One was at the end of July, when the State Department unveiled a
series of arms sales in the region to contain Iran. In her July 30
announcement of the potential sale of $20 billion in arms to Saudi
Arabia and the other five members of the Gulf Cooperation Council,
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the arms will "support a
broader strategy to counter the negative influences of al-Qaida,
Hezbollah, Syria and Iran."
However, the exact nature of the Iranian threat or how these U.S.
weapons transfers will counter it was never spelled out.
The other was in August when the Senate unanimously passed a
resolution sponsored by Sen. Lieberman, I-Conn., accusing Iran of acts
of war against the United States -- a resolution with no purpose other
than to strengthen the case for war against Tehran.
A third was the White House decision to designate at least elements of
Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization, using
the president's authority under a September 2001 executive order.
Robert Baer, a former high-ranking CIA field officer in the Middle
East, wrote recently in Time Magazine that:
"Reports that the Bush administration will put Iran's Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps on the terrorism list can be read in one of
two ways: It's either more bluster or, ominously, a wind-up for a
strike on Iran. Officials I talk to in Washington vote for a hit on
the IRGC, maybe within the next six months."
(David Isenberg is a senior analyst with the British American Security
Information Council. He is also a member of the Coalition for a
Realistic Foreign Policy, an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute,
contributor to the Straus Military Reform Project, a research fellow
at the Independent Institute, and a U.S. Navy veteran. The views
expressed are his own.)
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written
by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important
issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United
Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum,
original submissions are invited.)
Community



----------------------------------------------------------


'We Are Moving Rapidly Towards an Abyss'

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle18330.htm

Spiegel Interview With Mohamed El Baradei
09/07/07 "Spiegel" -- 09/03/07 -- United Nations chief weapons
inspector Mohamed ElBaradei spoke to SPIEGEL about Iran's last chance
to convince the world of the peaceful nature of its nuclear program,
his problems with the US government and his fear of nuclear weapons
falling into the hands of terrorists.
SPIEGEL: Mr. ElBaradei, the international community suspects that Iran
aims to build nuclear weapons. Tehran denies this. Have we now reached
the decisive phase in which we will finally get an answer to this
central question of world politics?
Mohamed ElBaradei: Yes. The next few months will be crucial for the
overall situation in the Middle East. Whether we move in the direction
of escalation or in the direction of a peaceful solution.
SPIEGEL: You have been given a central role. The new report on Iran by
your International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) could lead to more
severe sanctions against Tehran.
ElBaradei: The international community will have to make that
decision. We can only deliver the facts and our assessment of the
situation. There are hopeful and positive signs. For the first time,
we have agreed, with the Iranians, to a sort of roadmap, a schedule,
if you will, for clarifying the outstanding issues. We should know by
November, or December at the latest, whether the Iranians will keep
their promises. If they don't, Tehran will have missed a great
opportunity -- possibly the last one.
SPIEGEL: The US government has described Iran's new willingness to
cooperate as a transparent attempt to distract from its true
intentions and from its continued development of the capabilities to
produce a nuclear weapon. Is the IAEA too gullible?

ElBaradei: I am familiar with these accusations. They are completely
untrue. It's not possible to manipulate us. We are not nave and we do
not take sides. Our new Iran report also shows that the Iranian
government is not adhering to the requirements set forth by the UN,
which demanded an immediate stop to uranium enrichment.
SPIEGEL: It is a proven fact that Tehran has spent years trying to
keep the international community in the dark over important aspects of
its nuclear program.
ElBaradei: That's right.
SPIEGEL: Your deputy, Olli Heinonen, who negotiated with the Iranians,
is now talking about a breakthrough, a "milestone." Given Iran's
history, wouldn't a healthy dose of suspicion be appropriate?
ElBaradei: Obviously we are all pushing for the same strategic goal:
That Iran should not get nuclear weapons. We consistently searched for
evidence that Iran intends to build nuclear weapons. We found
suspicious signs, but no smoking gun. We could now make some progress
in setting aside these suspicions by thoroughly inspecting the Iranian
facilities and learning details about their history.
SPIEGEL: What do you expect from Tehran?
ElBaradei: We expect information about the scope and nature of its
uranium enrichment program and its statements about certain suspicious
studies we have. The most decisive element in our assessment will be
whether Iran cooperates with us completely and actively.
SPIEGEL: It appears that Iran has fewer centrifuges up and running
than experts had assumed until recently. Some say there are
substantially fewer than 3,000, which is considered the minimum to
produce enough material for a bomb within one year. Have the
scientists encountered problems with the technology, or is the
surprisingly low number a sign of political accommodation?
ElBaradei: Both possibilities are valid. My gut feeling tells me that
Iran has responded positively to my repeated demands that it scale
back the program.
SPIEGEL: Aren't there other questions where you are still in the
dark?

ElBaradei: No. We can check many things precisely. I am not willing to
state definitively whether Iran is following up its promises with
actions. I just don't want to lose the opportunity to find out for
myself. The UN sanctions against Tehran will remain in place in the
interim. It's important to exert pressure. But in addition to
sanctions we must also have incentives.
SPIEGEL: Now, you believe, the time has come...
ElBaradei: ...to encourage Iran to take a new direction. Yes, that's
my opinion. If someone comes to me and says, I want to work with you
now, then I have to examine his offer to make sure it has substance.
We must see all the documents, be able to talk to anyone and have
unfettered access to all facilities. We are talking about two or three
months. Then we'll know more.
SPIEGEL: You are essentially asking for a time out. The Bush
administration sees the issue quite differently. It wants to turn up
the heat on the pressure cooker.
ElBaradei: Careful! If we turn up the heat too high the pot could
explode around our ears.
SPIEGEL: Washington wants to place the Revolutionary Guards -- an
important and, in the case of nuclear policy, decisive element of the
Iranian power structure -- on a list of terrorist organizations. The
Bush administration has called on foreign banks to cancel their
dealings with Iran. Gregory Schulte, the American envoy to the IAEA,
has made it clear that the US government wants to see tougher
sanctions. Do you believe that the Russians and the Chinese will vote
for more severe sanctions in the UN Security Council once they see the
new IAEA report?
ElBaradei: We at the IAEA do not make these political decisions.

SPIEGEL: But you would consider tighter sanctions to be
counterproductive?
ElBaradei: I don't make a secret of that. You can only set up so many
roadmaps. If there is no basis for trust, all that effort is in vain.
Sanctions alone will not produce a lasting solution. What we need in
the Middle East is not more weapons, but better educational
opportunities and more security for people. We should remind ourselves
every day of the terrible situation of Iraq's civilians. An
improvement in the catastrophic situation in Baghdad, with its tens of
thousands of civilian casualties, can only be achieved through
political measures -- through concrete improvement of the population's
living conditions and through opportunities for education and jobs.
And, most of all, by politically involving the neighboring countries.
SPIEGEL: The Iranian leadership insists on its right to enrich
uranium, and every country that has signed the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is entitled to this right, at least
formally.

ElBaradei: There are concrete suspicions against Iran. That's why I
believe that Iran has temporarily forfeited this right, and that it
will have to regain it with the international community through
confidence-building measures. On the other hand, those in the West
must realize that if all they expect is confrontation, they might as
well forget dialogue -- and they should not be surprised if the other
side seeks retribution.
SPIEGEL: Some politicians and senior military leaders in Israel, as
well as in the United States, are seriously considering an attack on
Iranian nuclear facilities. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has also
threatened to bomb the facilities. What do you think about the
"military option?"
ElBaradei: Nothing at all. Perhaps a large part of the Iranian
facilities could in fact be destroyed. But something like that would
trigger a terrible conflagration in the region, and it would certainly
strengthen the positions of those in Tehran who favor the development
of a nuclear bomb. After presumably withdrawing from the NPT, they
would then pursue such a program without any monitoring whatsoever.
The already deep conflicts between the Islamic world and the West
would explode. We need the opposite: an intensive dialogue involving
all major players, the Europeans and especially the United States.
SPIEGEL: Iran is your most difficult problem child, but certainly not
the only one. North Korea...
ElBaradei: ...was, until recently, seen as equally threatening. I am a
long way from declaring all concerns over Pyongyang's nuclear program
resolved. But the development there is positive. The Yongbyon reactor,
which is the most important one when it comes to bomb production, has
been taken offline under IAEA supervision. This is all the result of
intensive negotiations conducted with the regime by the major powers
and neighboring countries.
SPIEGEL: One could see it that way. But one could also say that
dictator Kim Jong Il expelled your inspectors, violated his
obligations, tested a bomb and thereby blackmailed the international
community.
ElBaradei: I am not defending the regime in North Korea, just as the
issue is not a ranking of governments that are more or less acceptable
to me. But in Pyongyang the desire to obtain the ultimate weapon also
arose from a feeling of insecurity and the idea that outside forces
planned to topple the regime, as well as the desire for security
guarantees. The outcome of the six-party talks with North Korea was
decisive. After five years of talking to each other, it remains
indisputable that dialogue brought an easing of tensions and, once its
nuclear arsenal has been completely eliminated, will bring Pyongyang
back into the fold of the IAEA. This could succeed through political
pressure, combined with economic incentives.
SPIEGEL: Isn't this sending the wrong message to the world's despotic
rulers -- acquire nuclear weapons or seriously threaten to develop a
nuclear weapons program and you'll be taken seriously?
ElBaradei: There is that risk. But, on the other hand, in order to
seem credible to the nuclear wannabe states we must demand steps
toward nuclear disarmament from those who have nuclear weapons -- an
obligation that is stipulated in the nonproliferation treaty but is
not complied with. I deplore this two-faced approach. If practically
all nuclear powers are modernizing instead of reducing their arsenals,
how can we argue with the non-nuclear states?
SPIEGEL: You visited North Korea in March when you believed that
things had taken a decisive turn for the better. Do you see yourself
-- under similar conditions -- traveling to Tehran toward the end of
the year?
ElBaradei: I would have nothing against traveling to Tehran tomorrow.
But while the North Koreans have complied with the UN's wishes and are
being rewarded for this positive behavior, I currently see the
Iranians in a sort of trial period -- with an uncertain outcome.
SPIEGEL: Do you have a good feeling about the fact that the French
president is putting a nuclear reactor in the desert for Libya's
ruler?
ElBaradei: I am not familiar with the details of the deal, and whether
I like or trust Moammar Gadhafi is irrelevant in this context. Libya
is a member of the IAEA, and we will be able to monitor the reactor.
SPIEGEL: What apparently cannot be monitored or can only be monitored
highly inadequately is the nuclear black market. It was just revealed
that China has "lost" eight kilograms of weapons-grade uranium.
Enriched uranium also keeps turning up in the states that emerged from
the bankrupt Soviet Union.
ElBaradei: Yes, that is unfortunately the case.

SPIEGEL: There is already speculation that al-Qaida is seeking to
acquire nuclear weapons. Do you think there is a real risk that
terrorists will obtain the ultimate weapon?
ElBaradei: That's my greatest concern, a horror scenario. I'm not
thinking about a nuclear weapon. No terrorist organization has the
necessary know-how or potential to acquire these weapons. But a small,
so-called dirty bomb containing radioactive material, detonated
somewhere in a major city, could cost human lives and set off massive
terror with serious economic consequences. Sometimes I think it's a
miracle that it hasn't happened yet. I pray that it remains that way.
SPIEGEL: You are in a conflicting situation. The IAEA's job is not
just to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and inspect nuclear
facilities, but also to promote the civilian use of nuclear energy.
However, nuclear power plants are generally considered dangerous, and
there is still no way to permanently store radioactive waste.
ElBaradei: Every technology comes with a residual risk. It's very low
in modern nuclear power plants. I know that some countries have a
psychological problem with nuclear power...

SPIEGEL: ...the Germans, for example, are very skeptical, and the
government has plans to begin getting out of nuclear energy. In your
opinion, should we continue to rely on nuclear power, especially in
light of such incidents as the recent earthquake in Japan that
affected the world's largest nuclear power plant?
ElBaradei: We are monitoring the situation there. The Japanese reactor
shut itself down automatically, thereby demonstrating its capacity for
functioning correctly in an emergency. But I cannot impose rules on
any country. You in Germany apparently have the option of structuring
your energy mix largely as you please. For other nations, particularly
in the Third World, new energy sources are critical to survival. Look
at India. The only way the more than 300 million Indians who live on
less than $1 a day can significantly improve their standard of living
is through the rapid growth in environmentally safe energy.
SPIEGEL: India never joined the NPT, and it tested a nuclear weapon in
1998. The IAEA is not even allowed to inspect India's civilian plants,
not to mention its military ones. And yet the United States now wants
to supply Delhi with new nuclear technology and fuel. Why didn't you
object to this deal?
ElBaradei: I was even in favor of it. I am not a purist or a dreamer.
India became a nuclear power, and it was ostracized internationally
for a time as a result. This no longer makes any sense. We would
consider it progress if we could monitor India's civilian nuclear
power plants in the future, and we will likely begin negotiations on
this issue with Delhi soon, provided the deal isn't cancelled as a
result of domestic political disagreements first.
SPIEGEL: You have headed the IAEA for 10 years now. Has your job
become easier or more difficult over the years?
ElBaradei: More difficult. We pay completely inadequate attention to
the important threats, the inhuman living conditions of billions of
people, climate change and the potential for nuclear holocaust. We
stand at a crossroads, and we are moving rapidly toward an abyss.
There are currently 27,000 nuclear warheads in the world. If we don't
change our way of thinking, John F. Kennedy's prediction that there
would be 20 nuclear powers will soon come true. And with each new
player and each new weapon, the risk of a planned or accidental
nuclear war increases.
SPIEGEL: What would you like to see as your legacy?

ElBaradei: I am in favor of a multinational procedure in matters of
uranium enrichment and reprocessing. Ultimately, no single country
should be in a position to independently produce nuclear material.
SPIEGEL: Now you must be dreaming.
ElBaradei: We must never forget that the dispute over nuclear weapons
is not a game, but deadly serious. It can easily lead to a catastrophe
and jeopardize the basis for the existence of all mankind. We need an
international system of security guarantees, in which no country
depends on nuclear weapons. We cannot wait any longer for this to
happen. Not a day longer.
SPIEGEL: Mr. ElBaradei, thank you for this interview.
The interview was conducted by Dieter Bednarz and Erich Follath
ElBaradei, 65, an Egyptian diplomat with a law degree from New York
University, has been the Director General of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) since 1997. Working on behalf of the UN,
Baradei's job is to prevent the further proliferation of nuclear
weapons.
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comments (17) Comment (0)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

JINSA/PNAC associated Cheney would probably still have US attack Iran
for AEI if even if we enter another recession or worse). I think I am
going to pack it in as well. There is no hope left. Especially when
the media won't even report the truth (as conveyed in the Mearsheimer/
Walt book) to a majority of Americans beyond C-SPAN (see the following
URL) and NPR and a book review or two:


http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78398


Thanks a bundle, this was highly interesting.

Einar

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Next Quagmire (Iran)/Mearsheimer & Walt Book Reviewed in London Sunday Times [email protected] Naval Aviation 0 September 4th 07 11:50 AM
I met US Navy aircraft during Iran-Iraq war Amir - Iranian F-4 pilot Naval Aviation 0 July 29th 07 08:02 PM
'Time running out for Iran strike' (similar to the pressure Israel put forth to get US to attack Iraq): [email protected] Naval Aviation 0 July 10th 07 06:31 PM
IRAQ DISASTER WARNING - An Attack on Iran by Christmas? [email protected] Naval Aviation 0 November 12th 06 05:24 AM
Bush and the neocons beating war drums for attack on Iran [email protected] Naval Aviation 1 April 6th 06 06:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.