Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Why we (don't) need to invade Iran
From the WashPost: IAEA Head Disputes Claims on Iran Arms:
We have it on good authority that there is no nuclear threat from Iran. This is the gentleman that told us the Iraq was not a nuclear threat. If I recall, he was right on that one. Oh, and the US intellegence: wrong.
He also takes the US to task for its stance toward Iran, compared to North Korea.
What, the current administration get behind the Europeans? I don't imagine that happening anytime in the near future. I have to wonder, what is the White House's fascination with the use of the military? It is almost like they have a fetish for men in uniforms.
Please compare and contrast the two points of view:
ElBaradei of the IAEA said Tuesday that there had been no discoveries in the last six months to substantiate claims that the Islamic state is secretly working toward building a nuclear bomb.
...suspension of its nuclear activities, such as uranium enrichment, that could be used in a weapons program. "If I look at the big picture," he said, "there is no enrichment in Iran, and this is quite satisfactory, and I hope it keeps this way until we reach an agreement" for a permanent stop.
[A senior Bush administration official said] that the IAEA's own reports demonstrate an "established pattern" over decades of Iran using peaceful nuclear programs to move toward developing nuclear weapons. "It is not a matter of finding a bomb in a given week," he said.
We have it on good authority that there is no nuclear threat from Iran. This is the gentleman that told us the Iraq was not a nuclear threat. If I recall, he was right on that one. Oh, and the US intellegence: wrong.
He also takes the US to task for its stance toward Iran, compared to North Korea.
[He] also described White House policies on Iran and North Korea as inconsistent. Without greater U.S. participation in diplomacy, ElBaradei said, confrontation could increase.
Echoing public and private comments from French, German and British officials, ElBaradei said the only way to end the crisis and avoid confrontation was for the Bush administration to get involved in the talks between the three countries and Iran.
"I don't think the Iranian issue will be resolved without the United States putting fully its weight behind the Europeans," he said.
What, the current administration get behind the Europeans? I don't imagine that happening anytime in the near future. I have to wonder, what is the White House's fascination with the use of the military? It is almost like they have a fetish for men in uniforms.
Please compare and contrast the two points of view:
His caution on Iran has led some Bush administration officials to suggest he is more interested in blocking U.S. policy than in stopping Iran.
But a majority of countries on the IAEA board consider ElBaradei's leadership on Iran helpful and want him to take a third term.
