Filed under: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, United Nations — Marc Schulman on November 15, 2007 @ 11:16 pm CET
While Ahmadinejad claims that the just-released IAEA report vindicates Iran, these quotes from the report suggest otherwise:
. . . since early 2006, the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, pursuant to the Additional Protocol and as a transparency measure. As a result, the Agency’s knowledge about Iran’s current nuclear programme is diminishing.
[ . . . ]
Although the Agency has no concrete information, other than that addressed through the work plan, about possible current undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, the Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran without full implementation of the Additional Protocol. This is especially important in the light of Iran’s undeclared activities for almost two decades and the need to restore confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.
The emphases are mine.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
1 Chris
November 15, 2007 @ 11:19 pm CETWhat!?!?!
I thought the IAEA was supposed to be in the pocket of Iran?
2 PatHMV
November 15, 2007 @ 11:25 pm CETWho said that, Chris? The IAEA is not in anybody’s pocket, it is merely utterly ineffective at its stated mission. They mean well, and work as hard as they can, but without any enforcement authority whatsoever, in a world where the U.N. can’t be bothered to actually require countries to comply with their obligations, then they just can’t ever hope to be successful.
3 Chris
November 15, 2007 @ 11:56 pm CETPatHMV,
These are the two comments I had in mind:
daveinboca: “The clown in charge of IAEA is the fox in charge of the chicken coop.”
Kevin Sullivan: “And my guess is that the IAEA will carry the water for the republic all the way, which is Tehran’s desire.”
4 PatHMV
November 16, 2007 @ 12:04 am CETThanks, Chris. I’ll let them speak for themselves, of course, as to what they meant.
The IAEA will certainly do its best, given the extremely limited means it has available, to determine whether Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, and it will be honest when declaring whether or not Iran has complied with the appropriate treaties and resolutions. I found, in the year leading up to the Iraq War, that they were scrupulously honest about what they did and didn’t find, and the amount of cooperation they did or did not receive.
However, the IAEA will also be extremely vocal in denouncing any attempts to actually do anything to Iran on the basis of Iran’s failure to comply with its obligations and its refusal to cooperate with the IAEA inspectors. I suppose some might consider that aspect of the IAEA’s behavior to constitute “carrying water.”
5 Chris
November 16, 2007 @ 12:12 am CETYeah… my point is not that they are above reproach, but that their record up to this point doesn’t point to any sort of intentional bias in their investigations.
So I guess we aren’t arguing
6 PatHMV
November 16, 2007 @ 12:17 am CETFor once.
7 Kevin Sullivan
November 16, 2007 @ 4:28 pm CETChris,
ElBaradei has shown nothing but a desire to let Iran off the hook. Don’t be mistaken, this acknowledgement makes them look very, very sloppy. He accused the West of hysteria, and now he has to come out and essentially say that his agency is clueless. Not a good pattern.
Everything Pat said is accurate, and we are still yet to get the formal report, which isn’t coming until next week at the earliest, to my recollection.
8 Michael van der Galiën
November 16, 2007 @ 4:59 pm CETI’m with Kevin.
ElBaradei has become a politician. one that tends to support regimes like the one in Tehran.
What’s more,not only is he a politician, he’s also incompetent.
9 Chris
November 16, 2007 @ 5:52 pm CETWhat are you and Kevin basing that opinion on? Is it because he doesn’t support your dreams of leveling Iran just yet?
And the pattern you’re following is the same foolish one we went through in 2002. Saddam was accused of having WMDs and nuclear program. The IAEA said there was little evidence but that they couldn’t confirm or deny. Then the war supporters said that the lack of evidence was evidence enough for war.
So anyways, who really has the agenda here?
10 Kevin Sullivan
November 16, 2007 @ 6:26 pm CETSerious people pursue sanctions, while the far left and Right scream on and on about kyl-Lieberman and impending war.
Is Gordon Brown pushing for war? How about Russia? The EU? World Bank? All have made, or are making efforts to curb this nuclear program.
If you think I want to see Iran leveled, well you clearly read nothing I write about Iran. War there would be terrible, but what would be even worse would be an agressive and hegemonic Iran with the bomb. After the Iranian Revolution, the surrounding neighbor states armed themselves to the teeth. Check out the GCC, and the attempted coups in Kuwait and Qatar.
What could result would be disasterous–a collection of ever-unstable regimes engaging in an arms race, partly funded by us. It’s completely disingenuous to argue that this is only of concern to Dick Cheney and the “omg, neocons!”
11 Michael van der Galiën
November 16, 2007 @ 6:46 pm CETKevin: there’s no need to respond to such allegations. In fact, I would’ve edited that comment (no need to argue with a strawman), if you wouldn’t have responded.
12 Chris
November 16, 2007 @ 6:46 pm CETI apologize for taking this discussion down that path, but I still haven’t seen anything out of the IAEA (leaving their effectiveness aside) that would make me believe that they are somehow in league with Iran.
It all sounds very even-handed and straightforward. We don’t have all the information; we would like more access.