Preventive strike would be catastrophic,’ IAEA chief says

[ABushismaDay]

I think that El Baradei hit the nail on the head. Bush is sensless in his provocatiion of another war.

ElBaradei warns on Iran nuclear facilities attack
‘Preventive strike would be catastrophic,’ IAEA chief says

Updated: 6:23 p.m. ET Jan 25, 2007
DAVOS, Switzerland - The head of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency, in an indirect warning to the United States and Israel, said Thursday a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would have “catastrophic” consequences and only strengthen Tehran’s resolve to make atomic arms.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, also cited Western intelligence assessments that Iran may be only four years away from having the capacity to produce such weapons. But he stressed that his agency’s inspectors had turned up no firm evidence of such intentions.

Still, he indicated there are some in Tehran who favored developing such arms.

“A preventive strike would be catastrophic,” ElBaradei said at a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum, adding it would only “strengthen the hand of those who say ‘let us develop a weapon.’”

While ElBaradei did not name any nation, his comments were clearly directed at Israel and the United States, which have both suggested a strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities was not off the table unless the Islamic republic ended its nuclear defiance.

U.S., Israel up rhetoric, military presence
In a clear warning of such possible intentions, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday his country — believed now to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East — will respond to the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions “with all the means at our disposal.”

It also came as the United States beefed up its naval presence in the Gulf, sending a second U.S. aircraft carrier group there to signal Iran it will not tolerate any attempts to dominate the region.

The U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran last month for defying demands to freeze uranium enrichment. Tehran says it wants to perfect the process to generate electricity, but its other use — creating the fissile core of nuclear weapons — has fed international concerns about Iran’s true intentions.

Instead of compromise, Iran has ramped up the rhetoric and its nuclear activity.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Washington was incapable of inflicting “serious damage” on his country. And U.N. officials told the Associated Press last week that Iran was ready to start assembling thousands of centrifuges to enrich uranium after finishing work on an underground facility housing such machines.

‘Are you going to bomb the knowledge?’
Even if Tehran proves successful in installing 3,000 centrifuges — in the first stage of what it says will be a network of more than 50,000 such machines — experts estimate it would take several years for all of them to be running smoothly. Once that happens, Tehran could produce two bombs a year.

“They have the knowledge, sure they have the knowledge,” said ElBaradei of Iran’s nuclear program — which has been under IAEA investigation for more than four years. “Are you going to bomb the knowledge?”

ElBaradei indicated he was not against U.N.-sanctioned force against world renegades as a last option. But “in the case of Iran, we are absolutely far away from it.”

Talks, first between Tehran and European powers Britain, France and Germany and then the five Security Council permanent members and Germany have failed over more than two years to persuade the Islamic republic to shelve enrichment plans and led to the U.N. sanctions.

But ElBaradei said new negotiations — this time involving not only the great powers but all countries in the region — were the best way to reach compromise. And the “U.S. has to be engaged,” he said, in indirect criticism of America’s refusal up to now to hold one-on-one talks with Iran.

[XtremeJibber2001]

So, Mr. Bushism, what are you suggesting? Just allow Iran to build nukes and cross your fingers for the best?

Look what happened when Hitler was ignored.

[BadDog]

On the other hand, the Cold War was won againist an "enemy" who had nuclear weapons without actually dropping any bombs on Russia.

[XtremeJibber2001]

On the other hand, the Cold War was won againist an "enemy" who had nuclear weapons without actually dropping any bombs on Russia.

Yes, but Nikita Khrushchev and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are much, MUCH different individuals.

[ABushismaDay]

What I am suggesting is that we hold everyone to the same standards. There's no proof that they are going nuclear. Iran developing nuclear power is perfetly within their rights. They Why should Israel be allowed to have nuclear weapons and not have to sign the treaty?

[XtremeJibber2001]

There's no proof that they are going nuclear.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070122/ap_ ... an_nuclear

How did you come to that conclusion? Last I checked, Iran isn't allowing IAEA inspectors in.

[ABushismaDay]

Did you read the full article? Once again they are within their right to barr some inspectors. Maybe they felt that those inspectors were biased. I didn't see anything stating that they were going to discontinue all inspections. That article is just more war drum beating.

"The act of rejecting some inspectors is legal and in accordance with the agency's regulations," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the official Islamic Republic News Agency. He said others on the U.N. nuclear watchdog's list remain eligible, but did not explain how Iran decided which inspectors to bar."
.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Did you read the full article? Once again they are within their right to barr some inspectors. Maybe they felt that those inspectors were biased. I didn't see anything stationg that they were going to discontinue all inspections. That article is just more war drum beating.

"The act of rejecting some inspectors is legal and in accordance with the agency's regulations," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the official Islamic Republic News Agency. He said others on the U.N. nuclear watchdog's list remain eligible, but did not explain how Iran decided which inspectors to bar."
.

Yes, I did. It states that 38 of 200 inspectors have been rejected, but the remaining 162 IAEA inspectors have yet to inspect anything ... at least that's what I get from the story.

Can you please post a link in which it states "There's no proof that they are going nuclear." Of course, if the IAEA hasn't inspected anything, there won't be proof ...

If anything, their shifty ways thus far are proof enough to conclude they at least have something to hide. Unless of course, you have a document that states otherwise.

Since they are part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they must comply with UN IAEA NPT inspections.

[BadDog]

If anything, their shifty ways thus far are proof enough to conclude they at least have something to hide.

Exactly the same thing was said about the non-existant WMD in Iraq.

[XtremeJibber2001]

If anything, their shifty ways thus far are proof enough to conclude they at least have something to hide.

Exactly the same thing was said about the non-existent WMD in Iraq.

Right. You'd think Iran would wish to avoid a cat and mouse game like we saw in Iraq ... especially if they were honestly trying to build nuclear plants for energy for their own citizens.

If they don't like being inspected, they need to drop out of the NPT, but if they do that, they'll most likely bring a war upon themselves.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Then why should Israel be allowed to have nuclear weapons and not have to sign the treaty?

This is unconfirmed, not a fact, as you've laid out.

[ABushismaDay]

We have gone to war with Iraq on less unconfirmed facts. Let's start of with Mordechai Vanunu's whistle blowing in the 80's? What about Olmert's interview where he says"

"Israel is a democracy, Israel doesn't threaten any country with anything, never did," he said. "The most that we tried to get for ourselves is to try to live without terror, but we never threaten another nation with annihilation. Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they [Iran] are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"


What about this yahoo article?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070106/ts_ ... _israel_dc


"LONDON (Reuters) - Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, Britain's Sunday Times newspaper said. "

There is plenty of proof, the problem is everyone ignoring the white elephant in the room.

I think that since we claim to try to bring peace to the middle east, we should be unbiased in our methods. Why did we stop U.S. aid and arms sales to Pakistan in October 1990. Because the President could not make the required annual certification to Congress under Section 620E(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act, the so-called "Pressler Amendment," that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device.

The President would be hard pressed to confirm this of Israel, but yet we continue to send them aid. We could easily threathen to cut off aid unless they open up Desdemona to inspections. and make them sign a nonprolification treaty. We have the power to stop an arms race in the Middle East, and bring piece to the middle east. We just choose not to.

[XtremeJibber2001]

OK, Israel has nukes.

The real pressing issue still remains ... how many IAEA inspectors have inspected Iranian nuclear enrichment plants? How many inspectors have concluded "no evidence" as you've pointed out above? Is it within Iran's right to refuse ALL IAEA inspectors via the NPT?

[ABushismaDay]

Up to now they have been complying with inspections. As proof of this I offer the following excerpted from MSN:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16813170/

DAVOS, Switzerland - The head of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency, in an indirect warning to the United States and Israel, said Thursday a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would have “catastrophic” consequences and only strengthen Tehran’s resolve to make atomic arms.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, also cited Western intelligence assessments that Iran may be only four years away from having the capacity to produce such weapons. But he stressed that his agency’s inspectors had turned up no firm evidence of such intentions.

[ABushismaDay]

I feel that the US should try to diffuse this situationand not antagonize it into full blown war. If there is concrete proof that Iran is breaking it's treaty,which there isn't, then something should be done about it. If it turns out that Iran is trying to go nuclear then first let the UN try to diffuse the situation. Spreading our already thin military resources does us no good. All it will probably do is start a full blown world war. Nobody wins then.