Posts

The IAEA Weighs In

What a topsy-turvy world in which Communists complain about election fraud and a U.N. watchdog is more wary than the U.S. intelligence apparat. The New York Times reports: “To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to … Read More

By / December 5, 2007

What a topsy-turvy world in which Communists complain about election fraud and a U.N. watchdog is more wary than the U.S. intelligence apparat. The New York Times reports:

“To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to the [IAEA] said. “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.”

The official called the American assertion that Iran had “halted” its weapons program in 2003 “somewhat surprising.”

That the nuclear watchdog agency based in Vienna is sounding a somewhat tougher line than the Bush administration is surprising, given that the administration has long criticized it for not pressuring Iran hard enough to curb its nuclear program.

[...]

The American analysis twice describes the Natanz enrichment program as civilian, and omits the administration’s oft-cited analysis that there is no logical application for enriched uranium other than eventual military use. Referring to the finding’s characterization of uranium enrichment, the official allied with the international agency said, “We wouldn’t go that far.”

Someone had better put a leash on that warmonger ElBaradei. 

Tagged with: