Sunday
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has been in Tehran talking to the regime there about it's nuclear program. He asked a few questions about Iran's intentions. The response? We'll get back to you- see you next month.
“We will try to solve all the outstanding questions by mid-February before Mohamed ElBaradei presents his report in March to the Board of Governors,” the head of Iran's atomic energy organisation Gholam Reza Aghazadeh told the ISNA news agency.“We are hoping that all the past and present questions about our dossier will be solved and that we will return to a normal situation,” Mr Aghazadeh said.
If Iran's intentions are within the parameters set by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, why will it take Iran a month to answer the IAEA's questions?
If Iran's intentions are within the parameters set by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, why will it take Iran a month to answer the IAEA's questions?
Question answers itself, doesn't it?
But not to worry. The CIA tells us that Iran was working on a nuclear bomb and stopped in 2003 (for some strange reason) and may or may not have continued not working on nuclear weapons. Let's us all sleep comfy in our beds, no?
What is wrong with El-Baradi anyway? The CIA have told him not to worry. The New York Times agrees. Why can't El-Baradi just give up his Arab witch hunt against those innocent Persians?
Posted by Alice at January 13, 2008 06:15 PM
Uh, not to defend Iran or anything, but we are talking about a state beaurocracy talking with a UN beaurocracy.
This involves a cast of thousands all making sure that they have their say, but not in any way that would lead anyone to suggest that they might have said anything actually definitive, as well as ensuring that the blame goes to someone else.
Next month in this context means next blue moon.
Posted by Kevin B at January 13, 2008 06:20 PM
Jeez, I dunno, in a perfect world if someone was asking me questions about my nuclear ambitions and success to date with said ambitions I'd just give out the closest approximate answers that came to mind - but if those answers meant the difference between more sanctions and threats of war I'd probably want to think about it before getting back. Just so there's no misunderstanding you see.
Posted by WalterBoswell at January 14, 2008 02:16 PM
WalterBoswell: "...if those answers meant the difference between more sanctions and threats of war I'd probably want to think about it before getting back."
Except, Iranian officials already know which answers lead to what conclusions, they've been playing the game for years. This is more like a politician in the midst of a scandal stalling for time, because everyone gets bored and stops paying attention to the details. If you slow down the investigations (or inspectors) enough, you can make progress on your own agenda without all the people looking over your shoulder all the time. This is why interrogators don't give prisoners the opportunity to take a break any time they feel like it, doing so just makes finding the "truth" much less likely. And, Iran just took a bathroom break, and a lunch break, and a holiday break, and a... you get the point... break, in the middle of an important series of questions.
Posted by REN at January 16, 2008 01:55 PM
