Bush on warpath over UN's shock report on Iran A-bomb (Dubya is Angry!)

The Daily Telegraph ^ | 09/07/2003 | Con Coughlin

[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.

[First Amendment]

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.

How is it that anyone takes this seriously? Since they've been lying, trying to make nukes, and hiding the evidence, give them more time so they can complete their project???

More and more I feel like we've been transported into the Twilight Zone, some strange alternate reality where black is white and white is black and anyone who sees the truth is either here on FR and not in a position of power, or they are afraid to say anything.

[Republic]

So what's GW going to do...send Powel up to the UN with a harsh letter?

I am damn glad that it is President Bush who is leading our nation just about now. You appear to disagree-your comment reeks with so much snideness I am just sure you have a course of action in mind. Care to share it?

[APRPEH]

well if owl goreing were the alternative, then okay, your right. bush has common sense enough to fight without worrying about the fallout.. well, maybe that is common sense.. the jury is still out. we must act. but we must act with a purpose and a vision. iran must be dumped as iraq was. fixing iran will probably be easier too. the vision must include not making the mistakes of the past like we are now in trying to build a unified iraq, a product of WWI idealistic border crafting. will iran be over thrown internally before they go nuke bomb capable? is iran as much a threat to use the nuke when they have it as we perceived saddam to have been? i believe yes to the use question. as to is iran ready for an internal revolution, doubtful. too much wishful thinking. a shove is needed. a shove by an M-1 assault..

[First Amendment]

So Bush and his Neo-Con handlers have been caught lying about Iraq having WMDS,

What are you referring to? The "16 words"? You're not serious, are you, or do you just hate Bush? If you hate him, why?

Do you really think that Saddam was no threat, had no WMD programs, equipment or supplies? Do you think that Saddam was content torturing and slaughtering just Iraqis?

[APRPEH]

yeah!

is it only neo-con? is cheney a neo-con? rummy? whats with the neo-con thing? are you saying that some conservatives were FOR saddam? for iraqi nukes (if there are any)? for oppression of the kurds? sure you can no and that those things are straw man and the real point is the us role in the world. but in the end, what is the real point?

[APRPEH]

wasnt it the "neo-con" brits who had the so-called evidence? and the "neo-con" un weapons inspectors who had cataloged what was in iraq when they were thrown out? and the "neo-con: clintonites who threatened war over the same issue? to which neo-cons do you refer?

[First Amendment]

I'm curious what WackyKat's going to say.

[proudofthesouth]

I have a better idea. Kick them out of our country. Level the UN buildings and turn the property into a nice park.

THE U.S. NEEDS TO LEAVE THE U.N. NOW AND KICK THEM OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!

[APRPEH]

but that isnt a business like approach? we need new office space to replace the Towers. dont you think the greatest tribute to our fallen brothers would be to turn the un building into a new business center?

[AFPhys]

Time for us to present the world with a Doomsday List. We announce a list of rogue nations that we believe may capable of producing nuclear weapons ... we would have no way to know which one was responsible ... it will be US policy to launch a full scale nuclear attack on every country on that list should such an attack occur... If any country on that list wants to be removed they can do so by meeting any and all conditions that we may require to be assured that they are no longer a threat.

This is a great idea. It would take balls and resolve, which I have no doubt that President Bush has, but I do have fear about his successor.

[proudofthesouth]

Maybe. But make it a BUSINESS center where AMERICAN owned companies conduct business.

[AFPhys]

[Unstable] Nations ... are very likely to actually USE nukes as if they were simply bigger bombs. To quote Egon from Ghostbusters, "It would be bad."

With the failure of the Clintonians as far as India/Pakistan acquiring nukes, I believe this is now inevitable. Af far back as 1970, I read books like "Will the Bomb Spread" which warned of this exact regional situation, as well as a couple others. Our government had been doing very well in preventing this spread, until the wonderful and oh-so-smart Clintonites got the mantle.

It will now be the surprise of my life if within the next 20 years these nitwit countries do not start utilizing nukes.

We must use our technological ability to counter this ASAP - and I would have NO PROBLEM with preemptive strikes to eliminate the problem entities. If they want to get into the nuke ballgame, we can accomodate them ...

[max_rpf]

I wrote the same thing on 9/12, but wanted to see a random selection from a list of 'axis' nations selected for destruction. You want to be sure that they see an advantage in not cooperating with eachother...

[ClancyJ]

Why exactly is it OK for us to have, develop, manufactuer, and test Nukes, and it's not OK for other Nations to do so?

Because we have had them for years and have not used them against others - except during the World War. The reason they want them is to usually attack America.

And you suggest we do what? Wait and watch? What does that do but find us waiting and watching? Are we to allow all these countries to mount attacks against us?

Why is it many here in America protest because they want to do away with nuclear weapons. Yet - and a big yet - we never hear them protest that these other countries are getting them. Why is it they only protest against America? Watch and see how many Americans are outraged that Iran is amassing nuclear. They only get outraged about America having them. Wonder why.

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread | DoctorZin

Click on the link above!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

[Stultis]

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.

Here we go again.

Hey, this time how about we preempt first, and talk later?

[Bon mots]

So what's GW going to do...send Powell up to the UN with a harsh letter?

Don't underestimate him. The Taliban did. Saddam did. The Ayatollahs are next in line.

I used to as well.

[wardaddy]

Agreed, W has directed the destruction for the most part of the Taliban and initiated regime change in Afghanistan, basically wiped out Saddams regime in Iraq and working on the aftermath, and hit Al Quaeda pretty hard too.

All in only 2 years after our wake up call. Not too shabby.

[anglian]

8/23/03 Memri Dispatch #568 Iraqi Expert: High Probability of Using Iraq's Airspace in an Israeli Military Operation Against Iran:

The daily (Al-Shira') (independent) claimed that 17 Israeli military experts spent some time recently in Iraq to study the possibility of using Iraq's airspace, in case other Arab airspace is not available, in a possible attack against Iranian nuclear plants. The paper quoted "an Iraqi military expert" as saying that "there are strategic factors in favor of using Iraq's airspace in such a military operation…" [20]

[anglian]

IRAN Imagery of Natanz as of 29 August 2002 http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/natanz.htm