Posted on 09/06/2003 6:09:24 PM PDT by Pubbie
America will tomorrow demand that the United Nations takes urgent action to prevent Iran acquiring the atom bomb as fears mount that Teheran is on course to develop a nuclear weapons capability within two years.
United States officials will make the demand at a special meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna that has been arranged to consider a 10-page report by Mohammed al-Baradei, the agency's director-general, into the state of Iran's nuclear programme.
Washington has already expressed deep concern about the discovery of traces of weapons grade uranium found in soil samples taken from one of Iran's top secret nuclear facilities last July.
In his report, a copy of which has been obtained by The Telegraph, Mr al-Baradei lists serious concerns raised by UN weapons inspectors about the scope of Iran's nuclear programme, which Teheran continues to insist is aimed at developing a nuclear power industry.
Inspectors are particularly concerned about activity at a nuclear complex at Natanz, in central Iran, which has sophisticated equipment for enriching uranium to weapons grade standard.
Even though the complex was built five years ago, the Iranian authorities only confirmed its existence to the IAEA earlier this year after its location was revealed by Iranian exiles.
The report also details the inspectors' concerns about the development of a heavy water facility at Arak, which they believe could help Iran to manufacture weapons grade uranium.
Mr al-Baradei writes in the report's conclusion that "there remain a number of important outstanding issues, particularly with regard to Iran's enrichment programme, that require urgent resolution".
US officials, however, are concerned that Mr al-Baradei, who this year argued in favour of UN inspectors being given more time to locate Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, will try to play down the significance of the recent discoveries made in Iran.
One American closely involved in monitoring Iran's nuclear programme said: "The big difference between Iraq and Iran is that the Iranians now have the ability to develop an atom bomb within two years. The time has come to force the Iranians to come clean about their real intentions."
Although Mr al-Baradei admits that the Iranians have deployed a variety of delaying tactics to prevent UN inspectors gaining access to secret nuclear facilities, he believes that they should be given more time to comply with their obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
American officials fear that many Europeans on the IAEA's 35-member board of governors, some of whose countries have lucrative trade ties with Teheran, will back Mr al-Baradei's position.
We're at war. (...and I hate the UN too.)
This may be to keep from having to re-implement the military draft.(?)
Your telling me that there isn't already a record that shows the UN doing nothing when terrorists are a threat?
Perhaps to keep active the idea to everyone of the fact that the UN IS truely a worthless money pit.
Do ya recognize the difference between civilized folk and non civilized folk? Didn't think so.....
It's a good question yonif, for I have pounded my head against the nearest wall too long, from the time Jean Kirkpatrick left the seat as our reperesentative.
I do (for the first time) however, see a President that is finally standing up to the UN and questioning their relevence. You may disagree with my opinion but since Dubya' has been in office he has professed their irrelievance without swinging a stick in anger.
An upcoming TV docudrama chronicling President Bush's actions in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks blames President Clinton's "weakness" for leaving America vulnerable to the disaster.
Titled "DC/9/11: A Time of Crisis" and set for broadcast Sunday night on Showtime, the film "rarely misses a chance to suggest that the Clinton administration's weakness was to blame for the disaster," reported the New York Times on Friday.
Listen Lord, I want you to stop asking all these embarrassing questions. All your trying to do is confuse the issue. bad,bad :>)
Why? What possible purpose could this serve? What will the UN do? Issue a decree?
Generally Bush is a little better on these sorts of questions, so I'll wait and see what he says. But this is what cruise missiles and Special Forces are for. I just don't think like a diplomat.
Because they are a radical Islamic regime that funds terrorism worldwide, has threatened the very existence of Israel, and thus cannot be trusted to handle the awesome responsibility of nuclear weapons responsibly.
Quite simply, one of those bombs could wind up in the hands of Al-Qaeda operative.
You weren't asking me, but the answer is: not at all. They will face a preemptive strike if they don't stop financing and running terrorism and producing nuclear weapons for that capacity.
Lord_Baltar has decided to take a powder, so I'll stand in for him.
"Why exactly is it OK for us to have, develop, manufactuer, and test Nukes, and it's not OK for al-Qaeda to do so?"
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.