Ex-Head of International Atomic Energy Agency Says Not "A Shred of Evidence" Iran Building Nukes

[Better Believe It]

June 2, 2011

Ex-Head of IAEA Says Iran is Not a "Clear and Present Danger"
"No Shred of Evidence" Iran Building Nukes
By SHERWOOD ROSS

The former Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) said in a new published report that he had not seen "a shred of evidence" that Iran was "building nuclear-weapons facilities and using enriched materials."

Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient who spent 12 years at the IAEA, told investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, "I don't believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat posed by Iran."

El Baradei, who is now a candidate for the presidency of Egypt, added, "The core issue is mutual lack of trust. I believe there will be no solution until the day that the United States and Iran sit down together to discuss the issues and put pressure on each other to find a solution."

El Baradei's remarks are contained in an article by Hersh titled "Iran And The Bomb," published in the June 6th issue of The New Yorker magazine.

Read the full article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/ross06022011.html

[bananas]

1. Iran seeking nuclear weapons technology: ElBaradei (2009)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/17/us-nuclear-ia...

Iran seeking nuclear weapons technology: ElBaradei
By Mark Heinrich and Sylvia Westall
VIENNA | Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:51pm EDT

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran wants the ability to build nuclear weapons to gain the reputation of a major power in the Middle East, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in a BBC interview broadcast on Wednesday.

Tehran denied the assertion. But International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei told Iran at an IAEA meeting that it would not be trusted unless "you go the extra mile" and lift restrictions on U.N. inspections.

<snip>

In an apparent slip-up during his exchange with reporters, Soltanieh said, in English: "There is no difference between any factions or groups of the Iranian nation on the inalienable right of nuclear weapons."

Pressed by Reuters in a phone call afterwards to clarify his remark, he said: "I said our peaceful uses of nuclear energy ... and of course our condemnation of nuclear weapons."

<snip>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8104388.stm

Page last updated at 18:21 GMT, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 19:21 UK

Iran 'would like nuclear option'

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency says he believes Iran is mastering nuclear technology and it wants the option of a nuclear weapon.

<snip>

"It is my gut feeling that Iran would like to have the technology to enable it to have nuclear weapons, if it decides to do so," Mr ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, told the BBC's Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen.

"They want to send a message to their neighbours, to the rest of the world, don't mess with us.

<snip>

The only safe future, he said, was widespread nuclear disarmament led by the existing nuclear powers which between them have 27,000 warheads.

[Better Believe It]

2. There is no evidence that Iran has decided to build nuclear weapons. Nothing has changed.

"It is my gut feeling that Iran would like to have the technology to enable it to have nuclear weapons, if it decides to do so," Mr ElBaradei

[bananas]

4. And at any time, they may decide to do so.

Look at how quickly the US went from a peace and prosperity leadership under Clinton/Gore to a corrupt militant leadership invading two countries and stamping out civil liberties under Bush/Cheney.

[Better Believe It]

6. And they may not. So what should be done? Invasion? Military action? Government subversion?

Nothing?

[bananas]

10. The first thing to do is to face reality

Nuclear salesmen have been telling us that another Chernobyl was impossible - and yet here we have another Chernobyl-scale disaster in Japan.
Nuclear salesmen have been telling us that nuclear energy construction costs were very low, less than $2 a watt - now we know it's at least 4 or 5 times that - and we have no idea how much waste disposal will ultimately cost.
Nuclear salesmen have been telling us that nuclear energy can't be used for nuclear weapons - even though it can - that's why the IAEA monitors nuclear energy facilities.
Nuclear salesmen have been telling us that nuclear energy is needed to stop global warming - even though it's not needed at all and is one of the worse alternatives to fossil fuels.

So the first thing is to stop listening to the nuclear salesmen and face reality - nuclear energy is dirty, dangerous, expensive, unnecessary, a proliferation problem, and a security problem (because they are pre-positioned dirty bombs - as we just saw in Japan, stop the cooling system and they will melt down within a matter of hours - and if the containment isn't vented, it will burst within a matter of hours).

Obama was unanimously awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts at nuclear arms reductions.
Valerie Plame joined the Global Zero movement.
I agree with her - we should eliminate nuclear weapons completely - it's going to take a long time, but we should be working towards that.

[bananas]

12. "there will be no solution until...United States and Iran...put pressure on each other"

El Baradei as quoted in the OP:
"there will be no solution until the day that the United States and Iran sit down together to discuss the issues and put pressure on each other to find a solution."

So there you go - this situation will just keep getting worse, with the US and Iran increasing the pressure on each other, until something gives.

[provis99]

9. yep. Just like Iraq "might" have had WMD.

[bananas]

11. Nope. nt

[bananas]

5. Japan, Germany, and Switzerland are phasing out nuclear energy - so should Iran and US.

There's no need for this archaic dirty dangerous expensive technology.
Entergy, Exelon, and Constellation cancelled their new reactors because they are too expensive.
The CEO of Entergy said "the numbers just don't work" for new nuclear.
The CEO of Exelon said that wind is already less expensive than new nuclear.
Wind and solar will keep getting less expensive, solar PV will be less expensive than nuclear in a few years.

[bananas]

7. Eight EU countries have created a new anti-nuclear bloc

www.nirs.org

May 31, 2011. Eight European Union countries (Austria, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta and Portugal) have created a new anti-nuclear bloc within the EU. Initial declaration here. PDF http://www.nirs.org/international/declarationofnon-nucl...

Declaration
May 25, 2011, Vienna

Ministers and Heads of Delegations of Austria, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein,
Luxembourg, Malta and Portugal, responding to the challenges posed by another severe
nuclear accident, met in Vienna today, in order to enhance co-operation and contribute further
to the discussions as regards environment, combating climate change as well as developing
safe and sustainable energy systems without necessarily relying on nuclear power.

Ministers and Heads of Delegations reiterated their utmost sympathy for the plight of the
Japanese people as well as their solidarity. They underlined their readiness to learn jointly
from this event.

The disastrous earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, and the subsequent events in the
Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant which has now been classified as a level 7 accident on
the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES), once more demonstrated that
the risks of nuclear power outweigh any potential benefit.

The principal issues discussed at the meeting were environmental aspects of nuclear power,
climate change policies, the potential for phasing out nuclear power, nuclear safety, nuclear
security and safeguards; the expectations regarding the stress tests for nuclear power plants;
the need for more and better information to be provided to countries neighbouring nuclear
states; issues of transparency and participation regarding nuclear plans and projects; but in
particular alternatives to nuclear power and the need to ensure the development and provision
of safe and sustainable energy supplies and services.

In their discussions, Ministers and Head of Delegations

• Emphasised their view that nuclear power is not compatible with the concept of
sustainable development and underlined their conviction that nuclear power does not
provide a viable option to combat climate change.

• Reiterated that the very significant safety, security, environmental and proliferation
risks associated with the nuclear power option remain, and need to be further
addressed by the international community, including co-operation between nuclear and
non-nuclear states in assessing the risks, exchanging information on their
management, and enhancing preparedness for responding to nuclear emergencies.

<snip>

[malaise]

3. Duh! n/t

[hootinholler]

8. The only way Iran is going to get a nuke

Is to buy the tech from KBR like Khan did for Pakistan.

Sheesh, until they get that through their head, no nukes for them.

-Hoot

[BlueIris]

13. So, NICE TRY, Iran war mongers. Pathetic lot, you. nt

[Igel]

14. Grice must roll over in his grave on a frequent basis when alBaradei speaks.

The claim is that Iran is engaged in low-level enrichment that could easily be upgraded to weapons grade; and that, in fact, it's likely that they've enriched beyond what is, strictly speaking, needed for their facilities (but still below weapons grade).

That's not equivalent to "they're building nuclear weapons." It's rather like having a company mine a lot of iron ore. That's not producing steel.

There's also the claim that they're working on nuclear triggers. Having a nuclear trigger that functions--which is further along than they may be--is different from installing the nuclear trigger in an atomic bomb. It's like having the company with a pile of iron ore buy a lot of coal and make coke from it. There's *still* no clear and present danger of being crushed by an ingot of cast iron, much less a coil of sheet steel.

But since alBaradei hasn't seen the evidence, he acts as though denying that there are nuclear-weapons facilities already made, or that they're actively engaged in building nuclear bombs, is equivalent to saying that they're not enriching U or working on the components that would be needed to produce a bomb. What he say may be true--but the inference to be drawn is false and simply doesn't follow.

[no_hypocrisy]

15. Why build when you can buy?