quote:

Transcript of Interviews Diplomacy and Force NEWSWEEK Interview with Mohamed ElBaradei 12 January 2006 See NEWSWEEK Magazine (23 January 2006 edition). "The man in the middle of the escalating tensions between Iran, Europe and the United States is Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the United Nations´ International Atomic Energy Agency. ElBaradei and the IAEA, recipients of last year´s Nobel Peace Prize, are charged with verifying Iran´s compliance - or lack thereof - with international safeguards against nuclear-weapons proliferation. In his first interview since Iran broke the seals on nuclear research equipment last week, ElBaradei spoke bluntly at his Vienna headquarters with NEWSWEEK´s Christopher Dickey about his frustrations with Tehran, and his ideas on how to avoid further escalation. DICKEY: You´ve said you´re running out of patience with Iran. What does that mean? MOHAMED ELBARADEI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, IAEA: For the last three years we have been doing intensive verification in Iran, and even after three years I am not yet in a position to make a judgment on the peaceful nature of the [nuclear] program. We still need to assure ourselves through access to documents, individuals [and] locations that we have seen all that we ought to see and that there is nothing fishy, if you like, about the program. DICKEY: At one site called Lavizan, facilities were bulldozed by Iran before you could look at them, and you weren´t allowed to run tests in the area. ELBARADEI: We clearly need to take environmental samplings from some of the equipment that used to be in Lavizan. We need to interview some of the people who have been engaged in Lavizan. We have [also] gotten some information about some modification of their missiles that could have some relationship to the nuclear program. So, we need to clarify all these things. It is very specific. They know what we want to do, and they just have to go and do it. I´m making it very clear right now that I cannot extend the deadline, which is... March 6. DICKEY: With all due respect, the Iranians don´t seem to care what you think. ELBARADEI: Well, they might not seem to care. But if I say that I am not able to confirm the peaceful nature of that program after three years of intensive work, well, that´s a conclusion that´s going to reverberate, I think, around the world. DICKEY: Do you have any indication that there is some other completely separate Iranian nuclear-weapons program? ELBARADEI: No, we don´t. But I won´t exclude that possibility. DICKEY: But there´s another problem. Even if the declared nuclear research is all that Iran has going, there´s nothing in the Non-Proliferation Treaty itself to prevent them from enriching uranium - which they say is their right. They could get to the point of producing their own nuclear fuel, or bomb material, then tell you, "We´re pulling out of the treaty." ELBARADEI: Sure. And if they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponization program along the way, they are really not very far - a few months - from a weapon. We need to revisit the treaty, because that margin of security is unacceptable. But specifically on Iran, the board is saying, "You have a right under the treaty to enrich uranium, but because of the lack of confidence in your program and because the IAEA has not yet given you a clean bill of health, you should not exercise that right. In a way, you have to go through a probation period, to build confidence again, before you can exercise your full rights." DICKEY: That was the basis of the European and Russian negotiations with Iran. But that´s been declared a dead end, and tensions are escalating. There´s probably going to be an emergency meeting of the IAEA Board in the next couple of weeks. Washington and now Europe have called for the U.N. Security Council to take up the issue. ELBARADEI: I´ll tell you, nobody wants to go to the Security Council - if they can avoid that... [But] even if it goes to the Security Council, it will be a graduated approach. If [the Iranians] decide to go the confrontation route, everybody will be hurt, there is no question about it. But at the end of the day, in my view, they will hurt more because there is a more united international community. DICKEY: Iran has been observing a protocol, which it didn´t actually sign, allowing your inspectors to visit many sites on very short notice. Now Tehran is threatening to stop that. ELBARADEI: Of course that would be another escalation. It also would backfire on Iran, because at least if we are on the ground we... can see what´s going on. We are there on the ground and we are saying we don´t see a clear and present danger. If there is no inspection, people can have as wild an imagination as they want [about Iranian activities], and that will hurt Iran. DICKEY: You talk about "confidence building," but at least since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to office last June, Iran´s activities have been mostly confidence destroying. ELBARADEI: It is very frustrating because everybody invested a lot of time and effort in building this confidence. It´s a very slow process. You can have a crash overnight. I hope the Iranian authorities will understand, again, that if they lose this nascent confidence building it will become even more complicated in the future to [restore]. It is very frustrating. But if you are in a business like mine you have to be very, very patient. DICKEY: What if the Iranians are just buying time for their bomb building? ELBARADEI: That´s why I said we are coming to the litmus test in the next few weeks. Diplomacy is not just talking. Diplomacy has to be backed by pressure and, in extreme cases, by force. We have rules. We have to do everything possible to uphold the rules through conviction. If not, then you impose them. Of course, this has to be the last resort, but sometimes you have to do it. DICKEY: You´re angry. ELBARADEI: No, I´m not angry, but I´d like to make sure the process will not be abused. There´s a difference. I still would like to be able to avoid escalation, but at the same time I do not want the Agency to be cheated; I do not want the process to be abused. I think that is clear. I have a responsibility, and I would like to fulfill it with as good a conscience as I can."

Source: IAEA (Original transcript from Newsweek)

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

This rhetoric reminds me of that of that Iraqi dictator...

quote:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran threatened on Tuesday to attack Israel in response to any "evil" act by the United States and said it had enriched uranium to a level close to the maximum compatible with civilian use in power stations. The defiant statements were issued shortly before world powers meet in Paris to discuss the next steps after Tehran rejected a UN call to halt uranium enrichment. ... "We have announced that wherever America does something evil, the first place that we target will be Israel," ISNA quoted a senior Revolutionary Guards commander, Rear Admiral Mohammad-Ebrahim Dehqani, as saying on Tuesday. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map". Iran's deputy oil minister said there was "some possibility" of a U.S. attack on his country over its nuclear programme.

(Source)

I understand that these threats are supposed to influence the meeting in Paris, but what I don't understand is why anyone should take them into account - after all, Iran has been threatening Israel with destruction for quite some time now. If anything this seems to be a step back (i.e. going from "we'll destroy Israel" to "if you don't behave, we'll destroy Israel").

i haven't read the whole thread and dunno if anyone put focus on this but:

Why isn't IAEA doing any inspections in Israel? As long as Israel inofficially is a nuclear nation IAEA should do inspections there. No israeli politicians have ever said that Israel got nukes. Still everyone knows they got.
And using arguments such as "Israel is a demoractic nation" is plain stupid. USA is a democratic nation as well and the only one that used nukes and even till today nothing stops them from using them again.

___________________
My new oldskool TRANCE mix!

quote:

Former CIA Analyst Says Iran Strike Set For June Or July McGovern: Staged terror attacks across Europe, US "probable" in order to justify invasion Former CIA analyst and Presidential advisor Ray McGovern, fresh from his heated public confrontation with Donald Rumsfeld, fears that staged terror attacks across Europe and the US are probable in order to justify the Bush administration's plan to launch a military strike against Iran, which he thinks will take place in June or July. Appearing on The Alex Jones Show, McGovern was asked about the timetable for war in Iran and said that behind the diplomatic smokescreen, the final chess pieces were being moved into position. "There is already one carrier task force there in the Gulf, two are steaming toward it at the last report I have at least - they will all be there in another week or so." "The propaganda has been laid, the aircraft carriers are in place, it doesn't take much to fly the bombers out of British and US bases - cruse missiles are at the ready, Israel is egging us on," said McGovern. McGovern said Iran's likely response to a US air strike would be threefold - mobilizing worldwide terrorist cells that would make Al-Qaeda look like a girls netball team - utilizing its cruise missile arsenal to attack US ships and sending fighters into Iraq to attack US forces. "The Iranians can easily send three divisions of revolutionary guard troops right over....the long border with Iraq," said McGovern, stating that the local Sunni population of Iraq would welcome such an invasion. The turmoil caused by such an action would lead the US to tap its so-called 'mini-nuke' arsenal said McGovern, opening a new Pandora's box of chaos. McGovern highlighted President Bush's all time record low approval ratings as a reason for launching an attack on Iran to again whip up false patriotic fervour. "I can see Karl Rove saying, 'look what you need to do is become a war president again, get us involved with something pretty big here and then strut around and say you can't vote for a bunch of Democrats to pull the rug out from under me while there's a war going on'." McGovern drew a comparison with the concillatory cold war stance of Russia and JFK's decision to respond in a similar manner, and the Iranian President's letter which was immediately dismissed by the Bush administration. JFK's approach saved the US from potential nuclear anihalation while Bush's actions put the US in severe danger as Russia and China give ominous mixed signals on what their response to a US strike on Iran will be. McGovern lambasted Bush's inner circle as uniformly lacking any real military experience and characterized them as a cabal already hell-bent on war. McGovern entertained the notion that western governments and intelligence hierarchies could potentially stage terror attacks in Europe and the US either before or after an invasion of Iran. "That's altogether possible," said McGovern. "I would say even probable because they need some proximate cause, some casus belli to justify really unleashing things on Iran....I would put very little past this crew - their record of dissembling and disingenuousness is unparalleled." McGovern said that Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld, fearing impeachment and Enron-style criminal proceedings, are urging President Bush to launch a war in order to create a climate unconducive to lengthy investigations and impeachment proceedings. Asked to cite specifically when we should expect to see an attack launched, McGovern said, "I think we all agree that an attack is likely before the election and we all agree that it has to do largely with the election - as for timing I see a likelihood that it could come as early as late June or early July, most of my colleagues predict August, September, maybe an October surprise even." "My thinking is that for it to be October that would be so crass and so transparent that even this crowd would shy away from making it so obvious," said McGovern. McGovern is set to appear along with a host of other respected and credible whistleblowers at the American Scholars Symposium at the end of this month.

http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/ir...t_june_july.htm

interview clip

Uhh.. I sure as hell hope this doesn't happen..

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

God bless America.

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer God bless America.

+1

___________________
Vernato

quote:

Originally posted by RebeL9 i haven't read the whole thread and dunno if anyone put focus on this but: Why isn't IAEA doing any inspections in Israel? As long as Israel inofficially is a nuclear nation IAEA should do inspections there. No israeli politicians have ever said that Israel got nukes. Still everyone knows they got. And using arguments such as "Israel is a demoractic nation" is plain stupid. USA is a democratic nation as well and the only one that used nukes and even till today nothing stops them from using them again.

If they were a signatory nation, then there would be an equitable system of verification and control.

But they aren't on a few of them even though they should be. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would be one that they have never signed but Iran has. The Chemical Weapons Convention is another. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed by Israel but never ratified is another example.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/ir...t_june_july.htm interview clip Uhh.. I sure as hell hope this doesn't happen..

Well lets look at what would be needed for something like this to become reality. They most certainly would need the precursors to validate war so terrorist attacks would be a must. I seriously don't see how they could get the support they need to go to war without something like that. Though even with terrorist attacks, I couldn't imagine how this country could be duped into another WMD war. The unpatriotic card has been played so many times its starting to wear. Any efforts to use it again would surely be so completely transparent. Not to mention, in order to go to war they need the approval of congress. I don't see how even a republican majority congress would approve such a thing.

All things considered, going to war with Iran would just be so obviously an act of desperation I seriously doubt the country would stand for it. But then again thats the same country that elected this yahoo into office, twice. This is also the same country in which after all things considered the largest protest rallies held in all this time have been for pro-illegal immigration. Its a sad thought to think the country might actually sit idly by shaking heads but not doing anything. Like McGovern said, I don't put anything past this crew but they couldn't, they wouldn't...