Democracy for Vancouver

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, speaking on CNN on Iran’s nuclear program, yesterday:

…
[W]e are not talking about Iran having today a nuclear weapon. We are trying to make sure that the future intention of Iran is peaceful, and that’s really what we are talking about. Risk assessment of possible future intention by Iran, if they have the technology to develop nuclear weapon.

I say that because at this stage we need to continue to work through creative diplomacy. We have the time. …
…
We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization. But we are looking into these alleged studies with Iran right now, and that’s why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks.

But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.

So there is a concern, but there is also time to clarify these concerns. And we should remember, Wolf, that this has — it’s a question of distrust that has been going on for over — almost half a decade. So, the earlier we go to the negotiation mode between the U.S. and Iran, the better we can resolve the issue.
…
This is an issue of security and trust. You can only resolve that through negotiation. Using force can usually, in most cases, exacerbate the situation rather than improve it. It could even accelerate a drive by Iran, even if they are not working on a nuclear weapon today, to go for a nuclear weapon.

So we can talk about use of force as and when we exhausted diplomacy, as and when we have no other alternative, as and when we think this is the best option. But we are far, far away from that stage.

And I would hope that we should continue to stop spinning and hyping the Iranian issue because that’s an issue that could have a major conflagration, and not only regionally but globally.

Statement of Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, on Iraq’s nuclear program, March 7, 2003:

At the outset, let me state one general observation: namely, that during the past four years, at the majority of Iraqi sites, industrial capacity has deteriorated substantially… This overall deterioration in industrial capacity is naturally of direct relevance to Iraq’s capability for resuming a nuclear weapons programme.

The IAEA has now conducted a total of 218 nuclear inspections at 141 sites, including 21 that had not been inspected before. In addition, IAEA experts have taken part in many joint UNMOVIC-IAEA inspections.
…
At this stage, the following can be stated:

* There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

* There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

* There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.

* Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.
…
After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. We intend to continue our inspection activities, making use of all the additional rights granted to us by resolution 1441 and all additional tools that might be available to us, including reconnaissance platforms and all relevant technologies. We also hope to continue to receive from States actionable information relevant to our mandate.

[emphasis added.]

Ten days later the U.S. ordered all inspectors out of Iraq, so that the U.S. invasion on the pretext of WMDs could begin.

Will we get fooled again?