A perfect storm is brewing between the IAEA and a subcomittee of the US House of Representatives over the extent of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The U. N. nuclear watchdog has written a letter saying part of the subcommittee’s case against Iran is “outrageous and dishonest,” according to CNN. The subcommittee had reported that Iran is already enriching weapons grade uranium.
Do I know the level of Iran’s nuclear activity? Of course not. But I can offer a couple of obvious observations.
In the wake of the Oil-for-Food scandal, anyone who takes the word of the United Nations or its subdivisions at face value is either a liar or a moron. Secondly, if the Iranians are not rather far along in their nuclear program, there’s something very wrong with them. The United States had these weapons over sixty years ago, the Soviet Union shortly thereafter. No one really knows (or no one reliable is saying publicly) how many countries have nuclear weapons at this time, but poor Third-World Pakistan, nuclear armed from at least 1998, had weapons grade uranium in 1985. It’s almost racist to assume their Iranian friends are not similarly capable (or nearly) more than twenty years later.
My further guess is that the excessive and distinctly non-diplomatic language used by the IAEA is an indication of some kind of guilt. From the same CNN article: “The subcommittee’s report also insinuates that the IAEA may be in cahoots with Tehran in covering up Iran’s nuclear ambitions.” Hmmm… sound familiar? How about a Yellowcake-for-Food Program… or U-238-for-Oil… you fill in the blanks.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
11 Comments
1. Ron:After what we have seen happen with the “Oil for Food” scam that the United Nations promoted, how can you believe anything that they say? We are not talking about a few million dollars being stolen by Benan Sevan at the United Nations or Kofi Annan’s son Kojo being in cahoots with one of the main companies “Cotecna” used for compliance and verification of actual amounts of oil shipped, were talking about a country which has threatened our country with annihilation. Why would we trust anything or anyone when atomics are being discussed. Iran is full of homicidal religious/cultists, diplomacy with this type come from the barrel of a gun. We have one political party that is pushing foolishness in time of real danger, these people can get us killed.
Sep 14, 2006 - 8:56 pm 2. Inigo Montoya:The IAEA shows that they have a spine after all.
But only in the service of preventing the exposure of their own connivance.
God help us.
Sep 14, 2006 - 10:58 pm 3. Steven Mitchell:I keep wondering how much faster our national budget would balance if we had no UN dues to pay?
Alternately, we put the money in a foreign aid pie, that Congress hands out to the countries deemed to be the most helpful and deserving. That would probably buy more goodwill than UN membership ever would.
Sep 14, 2006 - 11:55 pm 4. Terrye:Even if they were not taking bribes from Iran, the UN’s track record is such as that one has to doubt them. Of course after Iraq and their weapons debacle no one trusts anyone.
Sep 15, 2006 - 3:25 am 5. ricpic:If the U.S. or Israel don’t take down Iran’s nuclear program (however close to bomb making capacity and however hardened it is) both will be guilty of suicidal negligence.
Sep 15, 2006 - 3:43 am 6. Barry Dauphin:And since Bush lacks the cojones to do the necessary, expect Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike within the next six months: the “international community” be damned.
What a pity that the IAEA can’t use similar language to describe the level of Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA.
Sep 15, 2006 - 4:04 am 7. jedrury:“either a liar or a moron.” There is a third alternative. A Democrat.
Sep 15, 2006 - 6:31 am 8. Roy in Calif:“U-238-for-Oil”
I don’t think too many countries would object to giving Iran “depleted uranium-for-Oil”. I suspect that Iran might object to the form of the delivery systems (M1 Abrams, A-10’s, etc).
U235 is the isotope that causes worry… (just nit picking – it is always easier to be a critic than a creator).
Sep 15, 2006 - 7:03 am 9. Knucklehead:The UN has demonstrated that the best of them are feckless bureaucrats and the worst of them are shameless kleptocrats. The shameless kleptocrats have been searching for a source of funds large enough to replace the UNSCAM gravy train. Iran is, of course, the perfect partner to play them for the pocket-stuffing patsies they so dearly wish to be.
The best of the UN cabal, the feckless bureaucrats, just keep on keepin’ on. That is, after all, what they do.
There is little or nothing of any value to the US within the UN. Trick or Treat for UNICEF! Give ‘em two-bits and a trite smile and send ‘em on their way.
Sep 15, 2006 - 7:24 am 10. dclydew:1. Ah the UN, the perfect example of why our founding fathers warned against encumbering treaties with other nations. America should act in America’s best interest, not be forced to act in the interests of other nations to their own detrement.
2. As far as I know there is not yet proof that Iran has actually done anything. As such, the intel report should either have included evidence (which would shut the UN up) or have said “suspected”, “reason to believe” or some similar statement. I continue to be concerned that many things happening in Washington at this point rely more on political statements than fact… see Global Warming, Ethanol, Intelligent Design, Terri Schivo, the confusion over Iraq and AQ, the confusion over Iraq and WMD’s… the list goes on and on. (Note this is not a statement against the administration, but against the lack of vetting statements before they are made public, the lack of relying on Good Science, instead of pseudo-science in service of political potency… both parties seem equally guilty).
Sep 15, 2006 - 9:23 am 11. Grumpy Old Man:The UN as a whole is a cartel of tyrants, to be sure.
The IAEA, however, seems to have been right about Saddam’s nukes. How can we be so certain they are wrong about Ali Khamenei’s?
Sep 16, 2006 - 6:32 am