P
Patriot Games
Guest
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/un_iran_elbaradeis_gambit/2007/09/29/36781.html
Head of IAEA Defies Criticism on Iran
Saturday, September 29, 2007
VIENNA, Austria -- Criticized by the U.S. but backed by other world powers,
chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei is walking a fine line in
trying to cajole Iran into revealing past nuclear secrets.
Since wresting a promise from Tehran in July to clear up its nuclear record
by year's end, ElBaradei -- head of the International Atomic Energy
Agency -- has been vilified as pro-Tehran, and accused of overstepping his
authority.
With two sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for Iran's refusal to scrap
uranium enrichment -- a possible pathway to nuclear arms _ Iranian leaders
have seized on the agreement between the IAEA and their country to argue the
council is acting out of turn. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told world
leaders at the United Nations earlier in the week that Iran's nuclear case
now was "closed," with only the IAEA authorized to monitor the nation's
activities.
Such comments underline Washington's fears: that Iran is using the
cooperation agreement with the IAEA to draw attention from its defiance of
the Security Council and further complicate attempts -- led by the U.S. --
to impose new sanctions.
Russia's stance suggests such concerns are well-founded. Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov declared Thursday that "sanctions would undermine the
International Atomic Energy Agency's efforts" to clear up Iran's nuclear
past.
Beyond pushing his cooperation plan, recent ElBaradei comments on Iran
indirectly aimed at the United States have added to Washington's discomfort.
"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 said recently, alluding to
a key U.S. argument for invading Iraq in 2003 _ that Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. Four years later, no
such weapons have been found.
In a stinging rebuke, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the IAEA "is
not in the business of diplomacy" but a "technical agency" that should stick
to inspections and report on infringements.
Still, the U.S. has swung to publicly endorse the ElBaradei plan _ with
conditions. U.S. officials say Tehran must unconditionally answer all
questions by the agreed upon time frame, year's end, and insist the pact
does not abrogate its need to scrap suspension and fulfill other Security
Council demands.
A diplomat said opposition could leave the impression that the U.S., France
and Britain, the most vocal backers of new U.N. sanctions, did not care
about resolving the issue that had sent Iran's nuclear file to the Security
Council in the first place _ its refusal to cooperate in dispelling
suspicions about past nuclear activities.
ElBaradei denies that he is freelancing.
"It is not only the core of my mandate to clarify Iran's nuclear history _
it is a central Security Council demand," he told The Associated Press in
comments e-mailed Friday defending his work plan and indirectly countering
U.S. criticism that key IAEA members should have been consulted on it first.
"I continue, publicly and privately, to urge Iran to suspend," he added,
countering arguments that he is giving short shrift to Security Council
demands. "I continue to call for a 'double time out,' which is actually the
very same concept laid out in Security Council resolution: If you suspend
enrichment, we will suspend sanctions."
But discontent remains, said a senior U.S. official who spoke to the AP on
condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to express his views to
the media.
"It's frustrating that he is assisting the Iranians in delaying tactics and
helping them do what they want to do," he said.
David Albright, a former U.N. nuclear inspector, also was critical, saying
that "because of the political sensitivity of the issue the board should
have been consulted."
"I think what the U.S. is objecting to is that ElBaradei is trying to use
the IAEA to do international diplomacy," he said. "ElBaradei doesn't have
that mandate."
Suggesting the cooperation plan is flawed, Albright said that by embracing
it, ElBaradei was "fitting the facts on the ground" to try to prevent armed
conflict over Iran in a similarly selective way that the Bush administration
did to justify the invasion of Iraq.
But Joseph Cirincione, director for nuclear policy at the Center for
American Progress, a liberal think tank, said those critical of ElBaradei
"should take a deep, hard look at their own role and record for the war in
Iraq.
"We have an American government seemingly itching to go to war, and we find
that those who are proposing negotiations and inspections instead of war are
themselves coming under attack," he said.
Head of IAEA Defies Criticism on Iran
Saturday, September 29, 2007
VIENNA, Austria -- Criticized by the U.S. but backed by other world powers,
chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei is walking a fine line in
trying to cajole Iran into revealing past nuclear secrets.
Since wresting a promise from Tehran in July to clear up its nuclear record
by year's end, ElBaradei -- head of the International Atomic Energy
Agency -- has been vilified as pro-Tehran, and accused of overstepping his
authority.
With two sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for Iran's refusal to scrap
uranium enrichment -- a possible pathway to nuclear arms _ Iranian leaders
have seized on the agreement between the IAEA and their country to argue the
council is acting out of turn. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told world
leaders at the United Nations earlier in the week that Iran's nuclear case
now was "closed," with only the IAEA authorized to monitor the nation's
activities.
Such comments underline Washington's fears: that Iran is using the
cooperation agreement with the IAEA to draw attention from its defiance of
the Security Council and further complicate attempts -- led by the U.S. --
to impose new sanctions.
Russia's stance suggests such concerns are well-founded. Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov declared Thursday that "sanctions would undermine the
International Atomic Energy Agency's efforts" to clear up Iran's nuclear
past.
Beyond pushing his cooperation plan, recent ElBaradei comments on Iran
indirectly aimed at the United States have added to Washington's discomfort.
"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 said recently, alluding to
a key U.S. argument for invading Iraq in 2003 _ that Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. Four years later, no
such weapons have been found.
In a stinging rebuke, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the IAEA "is
not in the business of diplomacy" but a "technical agency" that should stick
to inspections and report on infringements.
Still, the U.S. has swung to publicly endorse the ElBaradei plan _ with
conditions. U.S. officials say Tehran must unconditionally answer all
questions by the agreed upon time frame, year's end, and insist the pact
does not abrogate its need to scrap suspension and fulfill other Security
Council demands.
A diplomat said opposition could leave the impression that the U.S., France
and Britain, the most vocal backers of new U.N. sanctions, did not care
about resolving the issue that had sent Iran's nuclear file to the Security
Council in the first place _ its refusal to cooperate in dispelling
suspicions about past nuclear activities.
ElBaradei denies that he is freelancing.
"It is not only the core of my mandate to clarify Iran's nuclear history _
it is a central Security Council demand," he told The Associated Press in
comments e-mailed Friday defending his work plan and indirectly countering
U.S. criticism that key IAEA members should have been consulted on it first.
"I continue, publicly and privately, to urge Iran to suspend," he added,
countering arguments that he is giving short shrift to Security Council
demands. "I continue to call for a 'double time out,' which is actually the
very same concept laid out in Security Council resolution: If you suspend
enrichment, we will suspend sanctions."
But discontent remains, said a senior U.S. official who spoke to the AP on
condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to express his views to
the media.
"It's frustrating that he is assisting the Iranians in delaying tactics and
helping them do what they want to do," he said.
David Albright, a former U.N. nuclear inspector, also was critical, saying
that "because of the political sensitivity of the issue the board should
have been consulted."
"I think what the U.S. is objecting to is that ElBaradei is trying to use
the IAEA to do international diplomacy," he said. "ElBaradei doesn't have
that mandate."
Suggesting the cooperation plan is flawed, Albright said that by embracing
it, ElBaradei was "fitting the facts on the ground" to try to prevent armed
conflict over Iran in a similarly selective way that the Bush administration
did to justify the invasion of Iraq.
But Joseph Cirincione, director for nuclear policy at the Center for
American Progress, a liberal think tank, said those critical of ElBaradei
"should take a deep, hard look at their own role and record for the war in
Iraq.
"We have an American government seemingly itching to go to war, and we find
that those who are proposing negotiations and inspections instead of war are
themselves coming under attack," he said.
