Posted on 09/17/2007 10:40:09 AM PDT by SmithL
Invoking the war in Iraq, the chief UN nuclear inspector criticized talk of attacking Iran as "hype" Monday, saying such options should only be considered as a last resort and only if authorized by the UN Security Council.
"I would not talk about any use of force," said Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in an indirect response to French warnings that the world had to be prepared for the possibility of war in the event that Iran obtains atomic weapons.
Saying only the UN Security Council could authorize the use of force, ElBaradei urged the world to remember Iraq before considering any similar action against Teheran.
"There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons," he told reporters.
He was alluding to a key US argument for invading Iraq in 2003 without Security Council approval - that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. Four years later, no such arsenals have been found.
ElBaradei, speaking outside a 144-nation meeting of his agency, urged both sides to back away from confrontation, in comments addressed both to Iran and the US-led group of nations pressing for new UN sanctions on Teheran for its refusal to end uranium enrichment.
"We need to be cool," he told reporters, adding: "We need not to hype the issue".
On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner warned that the world should prepare for war if Iran obtains nuclear weapons and said European leaders were considering their own economic sanctions against the Islamic country.
Negotiations and two sets of UN Security Council sanctions have failed to persuade Iran to stop its uranium enrichment program, a process that can produce fuel for nuclear power plants as well as material used in atomic weapons.
Iran insists its atomic activities are aimed only at producing energy, but the US, its European allies and other world powers suspect Iranian authorities of seeking nuclear weapons.
Kouchner, speaking on RTL radio, said that if "such a bomb is made... We must prepare ourselves for the worst," he said, specifying that could mean a war.
The United States also has refused to rule out the possibility of force against Iran if it continues to defy Security Council demands on enrichment. Still, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday the US administration is committed, for now, to using diplomatic and economic means to counter the potential nuclear threat from Iran.
"I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach. That's the one we are using," the Pentagon chief said.
Iran does not directly figure on the agenda of the IAEA general conference, which opened a five-day meeting Monday. But comments, both inside and outside the plenary hall, reflected the world's concerns over Teheran's nuclear aims.
In comments alluding to the US and its Western allies, Iranian Vice President Reza Aghazadeh accused unnamed countries of forcing the international community onto the "unjustified, illegal, deceptive and misleading path ... by imposing restrictions and sanctions."
And he again ruled out scrapping Iran's uranium enrichment program, telling delegates Iran would "never give up its inalienable and legal right in benefiting from peaceful nuclear technology."
ElBaradei, architect of a recent pact with Teheran committing it to stop stonewalling his experts and lift the shroud of secrecy on past suspicious nuclear work, defended the agreement against criticism it could be used by Teheran as a smoke screen to draw attention from its defiance of the Security Council.
"What we need to do is encourage Iran to work with the agency to clarify the outstanding issues," he said.
"I do not believe at this stage that we are facing a clear and present danger that requires we go beyond diplomacy," ElBaradei said, said, adding that his agency had no information that "the Iran program is being weaponized."
"We are not using a stick, we are not using a carrot, but we are trying to be impartial and objective," he said, alluding to Western criticism that he was being too soft on Iran. If "in time of hype telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act ... I will continue to be a revolutionary."
Considering the name, that I all I need to know.
What's that? Iran has successfully tested a nuclear weapon? Well, that changes everything!! Obviously, talk of military action would be extremely foolish in light of these events. Let's focus on dipomacy.
The UN simply enables the worst tyrants in the world.
That's true. Type, timing, duration, location, direction, quality, and quantity are vitally important.
First, this is a muslim advising against the use of force against muslims.
Second, if your neighbor says he is acquiring a weapon with which to do you harm, prudence dictates you not let that happen.
iran is the only national entity that can prevent the "use of force" against iran.
Is he the Mooselimb cousin of Hans Blix. Blix. Blix. It just needed to be typed 3 times.
Quote: “Saying only the UN Security Council could authorize the use of force, ElBaradei urged the world to remember Iraq . . .”
Oh, you mean where the UN did not authorize force and we did anyway, sure we can remember that. I suppose that to the leftists, Iraq signals somehow that the UN and UN alone can authorize the use of force. I think they are in for a great deal of dissapointment.
“Saying only the UN Security Council could authorize the use of force”
Sure thing, Mo.
Saying only the UN Security Council could authorize the use of force, ElBaradei urged the world to remember Iraq before considering any similar action against Teheran.
Sit your punk ass down you idiot stick. It was someone in your postion years ago that said they were sure Hussein had WMDs, since he was not allowing inspectors full acesss. That person evaporated into the woodwork, as soon as people said Bush was lying.
What we do is none of your f'n business. As for Iran, we don't need to send in ground troops. We'll take out the political and military leadership as well as the nuke sites and terrorist training camps. Then we'll see who steps into the power vacuum and repeat if necessary.
You folks can't even get the nuclear issue settled, but think you've got the juevos to make an overall assessment. Bull s--t!
Go take a valium and let some men take over you wuse.
On the other hand, my plumber, Ray Stonebraker, thinks we should have taken out Iran at least two years ago.
700,000 now. My my my. That number grows like his bank account every time he opens his mouth.
“...I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives...”
so what. More babies than that are aborted each year!!!
That dude looks like an Arab Dr Phil....
” Saying only the UN Security Council could authorize the use of force, “
he still doesn’t GET IT, does he
Memo to El Baradei and the U-bloody-effing-N: Kindly go sit on an air hose, turn in on and rotate!
Saddam Hussein, the President of Iraq, has warned the US about going to war with his country.
American President George W Bush has been talking for a while about attacking the Middle Eastern country of Iraq.
Saddam is thought to be one of the biggest enemies of the US. But in a speech on Iraqi TV, Saddam warned any attack on Iraq by the US would fail.
He said the only way to get peace is talk their differences through.
Weapons
Tension between the two countries started over 10 years ago, when Iraq invaded the State of Kuwait. The invasion started the Gulf War which Britain was involved in.
And after the 11 September attacks, the US said they would think about going to war with countries involved in terrorism. The US believe that includes Iraq.
They think Saddam is making dangerous chemical weapons and they don’t trust him not to use them.
In the past, Saddam made it really difficult for United Nations (UN) weapons inspectors to search Iraq. In the end they decided to leave.
But the British MP who deals with the Middle East said war could be avoided if Saddam decided to let weapons inspectors into his country.
Rule out nothing. This twerp is a fox in the henhouse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.