Replies

Israeli paranoia on Iran 'nukes'

November 15, 2003
By Gordon Prather
WorldNetDaily.com

The Israelis failed to intimidate the Russians and the European Union with threats of what the Israelis would do if "appropriate actions" were not taken against the Iranian nuke program – a program the International Atomic Energy Agency says doesn't exist.

So, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz met this week with Secretary of State Powell, Vice President Cheney and National Security Adviser Rice, and afterwards held a press conference.

Quoth Shaul: "Concentrated efforts are needed to delay, to stop or to prevent the Iranian nuclear program. I hope that you understand what I said."

Do you understand?

If you don't, it may be because you're too young to remember what the Israelis did just over 20 years ago.

Iraq was soon to begin operating Osiraq – a French-supplied 40 megawatt research reactor.

Since almost 28 pounds of highly enriched uranium had also been supplied by France for use as reactor fuel, Osiraq and all related facilities and operations were made subject to IAEA safeguards.

Bear in mind that it would take at least 120 pounds of weapons-grade HEU to make even one gun-type [Hiroshima] nuke.

Nevertheless, the Israelis claimed to have learned from "sources of unquestioned reliability" that Iraq was producing nukes at the Osiraq site.

So, the Israelis persuaded the Iranians – who were at war with Iraq at the time – to bomb Osiraq,

But, the Iranian raid was only partially successful. So, on June 7, 1981, Israel launched its own pre-emptive strike, totally destroying Osiraq.

The entire civilized world was outraged.

The United Nations Security Council strongly condemned the military attack by Israel, which it considered to be "in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct." The attack was also "a serious threat to the entire safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the foundation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons."

And, of course, the Security Council was right. Israel was not a party to the NPT, but Iraq was. Furthermore, Iraq was in full compliance with its Safeguards Agreement. IAEA inspectors – on the scene, before and after the attack – insisted that the Iraqis did not then have a nuke program.

We now know that the Israeli "sources of unquestioned reliability" were wrong – and the IAEA was right – about Iraq nuke programs not only at the time the Israelis bombed Osiraq (1981), but also when Clinton bombed Baghdad (1998), and when Bush invaded Iraq (2003).

As for Iran – also a party to the NPT – here are excerpts from a paper written in the aftermath of the Gulf War by nuclear fuel-cycle expert David Albright:

U.S. officials say they have clear indications that Iran wants nuclear weapons. But so far, the U.S. government has failed to identify any clandestine facilities in Iran that might be part of a secret nuclear-weapons program.
U.S. officials say that many Iranian nuclear scientists who left after the Shah was overthrown are returning to the country. Some of them are interested in working on uranium enrichment, others on chemically reprocessing irradiated nuclear fuel to obtain plutonium – both potential routes to bomb material.

Iran has many "hot cells" usable for separating plutonium from irradiated fuel. These were provided by the United States in the 1960s, when it supplied a five-megawatt research reactor to Iran.

One official said Iran is working on laser uranium enrichment – a program also begun under the Shah. But this technology has not progressed far in the West, and the official said he was "not very concerned" about that aspect of Iran's research.

Iran has been under a virtual embargo on nuclear technology since the 1980s, when the United States urged Germany and France not to restart nuclear cooperation with Tehran until "satisfactory reassurances about Iran's nonproliferation credentials are forthcoming."

If Iran's new ambitions are really peaceful, some Western officials have said, they might end their embargo on power reactor technology – after Iran agrees to let the IAEA come in and take a good look around.

Well, Albright wrote that in 1992. Iran now has invited the IAEA to come take a good look around, and it is their confidential report on what they found – and didn't find – that is the cause of current Israeli sound and fury.

The IAEA didn't find any "indications" of an Iranian nuke program.

So, what do you think the odds are that the IAEA is wrong about Iran and that the Israelis are right – for a change?

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35615