IAEA: U.S. report on Iran 'dishonest'

[E-Nice]

IAEA: U.S. report on Iran 'dishonest'
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 10 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_us_2



A recent House of Representatives committee report on Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has said.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.

The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran's nuclear program "for concluding that the purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to construct weapons."

In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran's request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report's version "incorrect and misleading."

"In addition," says the letter, "the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.'"

Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.

An IAEA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the letter, said it was written "to set the record straight."

Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the House committee, confirmed they had received the letter and said the chairman had referred it to Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Rep. Rush Hold, D-N.J. They will review it and issue a formal response if necessary, he said.

"All IAEA complains about is a photo caption. If you read the report, it's very clear that what it is saying is that Iran is working to develop the capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade, not that they have done so," Ware said. "They use a string of adjectives, while not pointing to any substantive criticism of the report. There are areas where we would disagree with them. A disagreement does not make what we say erroneous."

The dispute was reminiscent of the clashes between the IAEA and Washington over whether Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. American arguments that Saddam had such covert arms programs were given as the chief reason for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam.

ElBaradei's criticism of the U.S. standpoint on Iraq and subsequent perceptions that he was soft on Iran in his staff's investigation of suspicions Tehran's nuclear activities may be a cover for a weapons program led to a failed attempt last year by Washington to prevent his re-election.

[zerojunkie]

Well, I'm glad the AP cleared that one up for me. I guess buying your enrichment facilities from AQ Khan's network and hiding them under 8 ft of reinforced concrete surrounded by human shields is all just part of the process of establishing a civilian nuclear fuel cycle..........

[PETA]

I understand other facilities are over one thousand feet beneath the ground.

Concealment is not a characteristic of legitimate and peaceful purpose.

[Azog]

Originally Posted by xian

I understand other facilities are over one thousand feet beneath the ground.

Concealment is not a characteristic of legitimate and peaceful purpose.

Over 1000" underground? Whoa there buddy, what are your sources? Fox News, Hannity and Colmes or Michael Savage?

[zerojunkie]

8 ft or 1000 ft, does it really matter?

[E-Nice]

yeah.

one can be attacked.

the other one can't be reached with anything we have. bunker busters or full on hydrogen bombs don't go anywhere near 1000 feet deep. i think the B.Buster/tactical nuke/ i.e. a shape charge nuke was only developed to go 100 ft into rock. and thats on paper... never tested or made. at least thats what they tell us.

[zerojunkie]

I was speaking more towards intent, but the seismic effects of a hydrogen bomb might surprise you. Either way it only underscores the complexity of the problem a nuclear Iran poses. Do you think they're not trying to develop weapons or were you just stirring the pot?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Azog

Over 1000" underground? Whoa there buddy, what are your sources? Fox News, Hannity and Colmes or Michael Savage?

Read it in a Stratfor report.

Originally Posted by E-Nice

yeah.



one can be attacked.



the other one can't be reached with anything we have. bunker busters or full on hydrogen bombs don't go anywhere near 1000 feet deep. i think the B.Buster/tactical nuke/ i.e. a shape charge nuke was only developed to go 100 ft into rock. and thats on paper... never tested or made. at least thats what they tell us.

which was the reason why the fact was pointed out


apparently some facilities have been built in mined out areas.

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

I was speaking more towards intent, but the seismic effects of a hydrogen bomb might surprise you. Either way it only underscores the complexity of the problem a nuclear Iran poses. Do you think they're not trying to develop weapons or were you just stirring the pot?

the facuility(ies) itself is not directly assailable. However, one would think that if a facility is burried in a mine that fucking up routes into and out of it would render the facility useless though not destroyed.


The problem would be - not knowing what was going on at the facility - what was going in and out.

[kalamu]

Originally Posted by xian

Read it in a Stratfor report.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

where is Andy?

[Ash]

still don't trust them

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kalamu

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

where is Andy?

You'd prefer a movie perhaps?

[kalamu]

Originally Posted by xian

You'd prefer a movie perhaps?

yeah. or a nice coloring book. either way.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kalamu

yeah. or a nice coloring book. either way.

thought as much

[e-brake]

Originally Posted by xian

I understand other facilities are over one thousand feet beneath the ground.

Concealment is not a characteristic of legitimate and peaceful purpose.

Perhaps that has something to do with Isreal dropping bombs on the plants every 5 or 10 years. I think Iran is full of shit and needs to be checked, but really think about it. If you had a power plant that got blown up by someone that says they are going to blow it up again you would be pretty stupid to not try to protect it. The fact that they are building in bunkers doesnt mean that they are making nukes, it means that they got the msg loud and clear from Isreal last time and are taking steps to prevent a total loss again.

[zerojunkie]

You're thinking of Osirak...It was Saddam's nuclear program, and was only bombed once. But yeah, Iran has learned from it and has spread their nuclear program across the country instead of consolidating it into one facility.