The IAEA said in a report on Wednesday and released to the media today that it is “increasingly concerned” about a body of intelligence suggesting that Iran is working on developing a nuclear payload for a missile and other components of nuclear weapons.
In the 9-page report, IAEA said many member states are providing evidence for its assessment, describing the information it is receiving as “credible, extensive and comprehensive” [AP, 2 September].
Compared to older reports by IAEA on the subject, this latest one is much stronger and more direct. For example, IAEA is using the phrase “increasingly concerned” about the intelligence it is receiving for the first time. Or it calls as its sources “many” of its member states.
10 comments:
I guess the "many nations" is to put the lie to the Iranian cries of "it's all the Jews and the Great Satan saying bad things about poor little innocent us."
So what?
If IAEA pretends to be "increasingly concerned" about the nuclear program of Iran - notabene without delivering any evidence backing its assertions - it's only a useless escalation of words, without any further meaning.
Every house wife shows similar concerns, if she encounters some rodent. Such emotions don't say anything about the real size of a threat (if there actually should exist a threat).
"Information" is not "evidence", but interchange the two words long enough and you can make the careless believe anything. For example "Saddam" and "911".
On prior occasions the IAEA has repeatedly shown evidence that Iran was violating its treaty obligations and Iran's record has proven them to be consistently deceitful.
It is up to Iran to allow the IAEA to conduct inspections to determine whether there's hard evidence and it's nothing more than garbage to think that Iran can deny inspections so that the IAEA doesn't have a chance to collect evidence... and then say that the IAEA doesn't have evidence.
How stupid do you have to be to swallow that crud ?
Mr Uskowi,
With all due respect, you do not appear to have a consitent policy for what is an acceptable or unacceptable comment regarding the topics on this website. This is affecting the quality of the discussions and the exchange of ideas.
Mr Uskowi why does it take such a long time before our comments are published ?
It kind of kills the flow of
commenting between bloggers.
Regards.
Agreed totally, and my apologies for not monitoring the comments on timely manner. On monitoring policy, we are finalizing a new policy and will post it for comments by our readers soon.
I am Increasingly concerned it might rain somewhere in the world today.Should people be concerned too??
The IAEA is always demanding Iran to prove a negative..The head of the IAEA Amano, who's a Japanese btw and as the recent wikilaeks reveals is "firmly in Washington's camp on Iran's nuclear program" has ignored the catastrophe in his own country (Fukushima) and is rather throwing useless words around.
Apparently, there were reports that the Fukushima nuclear plant wasn't safe and couldn't stand earthquakes but what did the IAEA do about it? NOTHING!!! They even helped the Japanese government to cover it up.
The whole bruhaha over Iran's nuclear is what i like to call tempest in a teapot..Much noise about virtually nothing.Western powers like this as it's the only tool that rally them together on their save the world agenda. Take away Iran's nuclear program and they'll find another excuse to use.
And someone please help me out here.Under what international law is any country prevented from having nuclear tech or weapons? The proponents of nuclear disarmament are themselves armed to the teeth with nukes..Hypocrisy should have a different meaning.
I've been back to this country almost a year now and after countless debates with fellow Iranians I'm sorry to say that those against engagement and in favor of various levels of coercive measure against(Ironically their own country ) Iran use "intuition", "the nature of mullahs", "suggests that", and "no evidence of absence" arguments to promote Obama's continuation of Bush policies.
Those in favor of engagement use intelligence, diplomatic, scientific appraisals of Iran's programs and capabilities to argue for the "absence of evidence" of a nuclear weapons-directed program – noting that nuclear capability of Iran is public knowledge. Combined with other general interests of the US around the world, the absence of evidence forms the basis in favor of engagement.
No amount of evidence or discussion (short of proving the negative - an impossible task) will bring the two groups together.
One may wonder whether or not this divide in the "public" discourse has any resemblance to the debate in the US government quarters. It is doubtful!!
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH16Ak03.html
Press TV reported
"On Monday, Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Fereydoun Abbasi said Tehran has offered to give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) full supervision for five years if sanctions imposed against the Islamic Republic are lifted."
So on that basis the conclusion is that sanctions are biting or we should keep telling everyone that sanctions have no effect!
Post a Comment