ElBaradei Says Iran Is at Least 5 Years Away From Nuclear Arms

[sabra]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3HDzGEKJD1k&refer=home

ElBaradei Says Iran Is at Least 5 Years Away From Nuclear Arms

Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Iran is at least five to 10 years away from developing nuclear weapons, and any military attack on the country would only speed up its program, the head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog organization said today.

``We have not seen any facilities capable of building a weapon,'' International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. ``We are not dealing with a threat tomorrow.''

Military strikes to knock out any suspected Iranian nuclear program would be ``absolutely catastrophic'' and would ``accelerate a program, if it exists,'' he said. Graham Allison, an international-affairs professor at Harvard University and a former Defense Department official, told the forum that there's a 20 percent chance the U.S. or Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear research sites within the next two years.

The UN Security Council, which suspects Iran's nuclear program is disguising weapons development, voted unanimously on Dec. 23 to impose sanctions on Iran. These include a ban on the acquisition of materials that might be used to build an atomic bomb and a freeze on the financial assets of some Iranians and groups such as the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.

[babylonsister]

1. That hasn't stopped this admin before. Truth? HA! nt

[Dover]

2. IAEA chief says attack on Iran would be catastrophe

IAEA chief says attack on Iran would be catastrophe

By Stella Dawson
DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - An attack on Iran would be catastrophic and encourage it to develop a nuclear bomb, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Thursday.

"It would be absolutely counterproductive, and it would be catastrophic," ElBaradei said at a discussion on nuclear proliferation at the World Economic Forum.

The Bush administration in recent weeks has toughened its stance against Iran, which the West has accused of seeking to secretly build an atomic bomb, raising fears among political and business leaders that the U.S. plans an attack.

President George W. Bush has moved an additional aircraft carrier into the Gulf and told Iran that he would not allow it to provide weapons and support to insurgents in Iraq...>

http://thestaronline.com/news/story.asp?file=/2007/1/26/worldupdates/2007-01-26T035420Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-285099-2&sec=Worldupdates

[Demeter]

3. Bush LIKES Catastrophe

He's never seen a catastrophe he didn't like and couldn't profit from.

Call it something he hates if you want to deter him. Or just impeach, convict and imprison the bastard so we can get some sane adults in positions of leadership.

[Javaman]

4. yeah, they are the only success's he* ever gets. "catastrophic success". nt

[BigBadJohnny]

5. Ahmadinejad/Bush compromise?

Iranians have lately shown growing disfavor with President Ahmadinejad. He is too hawkish.
Similiarly, Psedident Bush has toned down his position. Prior to the State Of The Union, America was strongly concerned about Iran's nuclear threat. Now, since the speech, it is the world and the United Nations, who are concerned. This is a subtle difference.
Democrats and Republicans alike are strongly opposed to any suggestion of a strike against Iran.
Only last week, such an attack was considered warranted within the period, February (2007), and August. "The time is right".
The Democratic majority status is being felt.
For more on this crucial issue, see my XOMBA article at:

http://www.xomba.com/notes_on_the_burgeoning_crisis_in_the_east

[The Stranger]

6. But the war is already under way. Don't bother them with the facts.