ElBaradei: Naive and Irresponsible

Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohammed ElBarradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, tries to calm things down a bit:

The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday he had no evidence Iran was working actively to build nuclear weapons and expressed concern that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster.

Obviously, the man needs to read more Washington Post editorials. A steady diet of Mallaby, Hiatt, and Krauthammer can cure him of his pesky expertise on arms control issues.

Comments

Obviously Michele Malkin needs to have an intervention with Mohammed ElBarradei.

Posted by steve duncan | October 29, 2007 2:07 PM

I think he'd have a little bit more credibility if he and his agency hadn't been so completely wrong about Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Posted by mds | October 29, 2007 2:16 PM

mds,

Are you being sarcastic? I thought that, prior to the 2003 war, they were correct in saying that there was no evidence of a nuclear program.

Posted by Jim W | October 29, 2007 2:20 PM

Clearly the suspiciously-brown Mr ElBarradei is too afflicted with Bush-Hate to internalise the obvious lesson of Iraq, wherein it was his own naive and selfish refusal to follow the White House line on Saddam's WMD sabotaged The Leader's masterful strategy and forced Him to send in the troops.

If and when The Leader is forced to bomb Iran into a peaceful state, it'll be ElBarradei's fault. And Clinton's. And Scott Beauchamp's.

Posted by Tony J | October 29, 2007 2:20 PM

If only we spoke nicely and softly to the Mullahs, they wouldn't feel the need to enrich all this uranium which we have no evidence is intended for an Atom Bomb. It's not like they were building the facility in Natanz for at least 15 years prior to the Bushitler regime. Maybe all of the members of the security council could offer them some sort of North Korea deal and they would stop. Oh wait a second, that happened too. Well all I know is I hate Bush and I hate neocons and it's all their fault.

Posted by Eli Lake | October 29, 2007 2:31 PM

The knives are being swung at the back of our soldiers who in the future will be dying in Iran comes from the hand of Mohammed ElBaradei.

Posted by Woody Bombay | October 29, 2007 2:39 PM

Oliver Kamm writes:

As so often on this subject, where hard information is scarce and prudent assumptions have to be made, these are answers to the wrong questions. The emerging problem with Iran is not whether it is actively building nuclear weapons but whether we can take the regime at its word that a civil nuclear programme will not be used for military purposes. The answer to that question dominates all other considerations, because if and when Iran has access to the full fuel cycle, then the technology to fabricate material for nuclear weapons is essentially all there. Because the regime is deceitful, supports terrorism and anticipates the extinction of a member state of the UN, that prospect is ominous. This is why united diplomatic pressure on Iran needs to be exercised now, before only military options remain. ElBaradei will make that task more difficult if he insists on interpreting his role as that of political leader rather than civil servant.

Posted by John-Paul Pagano | October 29, 2007 3:15 PM

El Baradei his agency tried to run a 'middle road' during the run-up to the invasion - denying an Iraqi nuclear program, without putting his people out of work. They had run down every lead the Americans, and anyone else, had on nuclear material in Iraq, and come up empty. Had he been willing to certify Iraq nuke-free, and called for a lifting of the sanctions, he'd have shut down the single biggest justification for invasion, if not stopped the invasion, in a heartbeat. Instead, they called for MORE inspectors and maintaining the sanctions and keeping the big army the US had in Kuwait over the summer while they kept inspecting away, which struck me, at least, as just cynical featherbedding. He was useless to either side, which favored the invasion. (In other words, the Prize was undeserved.)

Posted by rvman | October 29, 2007 3:19 PM

Rvman,

I'm afraid you're history is a bit faulty.

El Baradei told the Security Council there were no nukes in Iraq. Blix told the same meeting of the Security Council that he could not state the same about chemical or biological weapons.

Then the US, Britain and Spain went ahead with the invasion.

Posted by jerry | October 29, 2007 3:25 PM

The emerging problem with Iran is not whether it is actively building nuclear weapons but whether we can take the regime at its word that a civil nuclear programme will not be used for military purposes.

Really?? Really?? We have to "take the regime at its word"?

Really?

If only there was some international organization which could look into these things and hold some sort of inspecting or something so that we could have some resort to evidence outside the screeches of the danger mongers.

Posted by El Cid | October 29, 2007 3:27 PM

Lots of sarcasm today. As a chickenhawk who doesn't favor intervention in Iran, let me say an invasion and occupation of Iran is very unlikely. First of all too many troops are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Second, Iran is a much larger country. Third, there will be no coalition of the willing, just the US.

Saddam committed genocide, was discovered to be pretty far along developing nukes after Gulf War I. annexed a memeber of the UN, bluffed most people into thinking he had WMDs, etc. Iran hasn't done these things.

Politically speaking, the Republicans lost Congress over Iraq. So they're going to doubledown?

I guess a bombing is possible, but not likely either. Bombing without regime change will not accomplish anything. Look what Clinton did to Iraq.

An occupation of Iran would make Iraq look like a tea party. The pacifist left have already gone as hyperbolic as possible in their rhetoric over Iraq, (Worst Disaster in History!) so their reaction would be interesting.

So, I predict nothing will happen with Iran, and Iran will get nukes down the road. (of course the wild card is Israel).

THEN we will see the consequences and I bet they won't be pretty. Of course the pacifist left will blame Bush - for pissing of Muslims or something - and if the Sunni Saudis join in the arms race against the Shia Iranians it could get very ugly, especially if an oil shock sends the global economy into a death spiral (bye bye universal health care!). Really no good choice, but some people might learn that when Bush's designated enemy of the week does get nukes - no Virginia - everything won't be "fine." It will be a real time experiment, whereas we'll never know what would have happened with Iraq.

Posted by Peter K. | October 29, 2007 4:06 PM

Speaking of the "wild card being Israel", a report this weekend from Der Spiegel that Cheney commissioned a war game to study what would happen if Israel was allowed to attack Iran first, thus igniting an Iranian retaliation which the US could then use as justification for attacking Iran.

So this shows you where Cheney is at.

Given that the Israeli Minister Lieberman a few months ago told the Israeli government that "we have a green light to attack Iran", I'd say that is pretty good evidence that is the plan.

Also, the US is upgrading the facilities and aircraft at Diego Garcia in preparations for the Iran war. This goes beyond any fantasies people have that all this preparation is just to "scare Iran" into diplomacy - which the Iranians have been willing to do since day one.

It begins to seem that the only thing holding Bush and Cheney back from attacking Iran is:

1) The Pentagon has clearly told them that there is no upside to the attack and senior officers such as Admiral Fallon have threatened to resign over it. Sorting this out and arranging for the proper toadies to be in place in the Joint Chiefs before the attack may be the big obstacle.

2) There has been no clear provocation from the Iranians, although both the US and the British are attempting to foment one. Reporting, British SAS forces have been in firefights with Iranian border guard recently on smuggling routes. And the US has built a base six miles from the Iranian border for just that purpose.

3) Bush and Cheney may not be sure they can count on their base's support or what the public reaction would be without a clear provocation or clear evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Apparently they learned from the Iraq fiasco that manufactured evidence works well only once. Even the "Iranians are killing US soldiers in Iraq" bit hasn't flown very well. If Petraeus was correct that the Iranians have pulled much of the Qods Force from Iran, it would seem Iran is not cooperating with Cheney's plans...

Israel's raid on Syria last month was clearly a test run for Iran. My guess is that Israel will carry the water for Cheney per his war game plan once he can sort out the Pentagon problems.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 29, 2007 4:45 PM

Eli,

What information do you have about what is happening at Natanz?

Posted by Dan Kervick | October 29, 2007 4:46 PM

Another roadblock to the Iran war might be Putin.

According to a diplomat present at the meeting between Putin and Ayatollah Khamenei (itself a rare meeting with foreigners by Khamenei), Putin put forth a plan to Khamenei to "nullify" the Bush/Cheney war plans.

Apparently, the concept was something along the lines of "attack Iran, and you attack Russia."

I'm not sure if that was said, or if it means what it sounds like, but it doesn't sound good.

Certainly if Russia and China were to simply say, "We do not approve of any military attack on Iran, and would have to respond if there is one", that would pretty much do one of two things:

1) Take the Iran war off the table.

2) Start WWIII - which would pretty much take the Iran war off the table, but who cares?

Even if Putin merely means that Russia would react with an oil embargo on countries participating in the attack, along with Iran's presumed efforts, and China would to announce that it would dump the US dollar, that would pretty much put the entire Western world against Bush and Cheney. Sanctions would be irrelevant at that point.

Putin appears to be willing to ratchet up opposition to the US more than ever before, so while I don't see Russia threatening military action against the US over Iran, merely vaguely hinting at it could throw the Pentagon - already doubtful over an Iran war - into a full-scale revolt against Bush and Cheney.

And that may be one more reason why the Iran war hasn't started yet.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 29, 2007 4:53 PM

Dan,

Are you asking this question because you don't think they are enriching uranium? I am basing this on the IAEA, the Iranians themselves, the ambassadors of other rogue states the Iranians invited to Natanz and two UN Security Council Resolutions, not to mention the foreign ministries of France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China. This fact--Iran enriches uranium at Natanz--is only controversial inside that community forever proclaiming its basis in reality.

Eli

Posted by Eli Lake | October 29, 2007 5:09 PM

Iran will get nuclear weapons eventually if it wants them. Pakistan was able to do it (and Pakistan did it with plenty of Saudi money, so it could be thought of as a joint venture).

That gives us a nice constraint. What to do?
The side that wants to put 'military pressure' on Iran is the side that frankly wants regime change in Iran. They want war.

The side that doesn't want war should not, then, blindly go along with putting in place structures that lead to war. The non-war side should be demanding that any sanctions go along with incentives, including recognition of Iran by the U.S., resumption of economic relations, etc. The second course would concentrate on making Iran's nuclear program more transparent, getting Khamenei to build on those assurances he has given in the past that Iran won't build nuclear weapon, and rely on Iran's changing its priorities as it becomes a more normal member of the Middle Eastern community. Those opposed to the war should try to make clear that they are opposed to overthrowing the Iranian government. They should also not engage in surface talk that avoids the issue: the Bush administration doesn't just want Iran not to have nuclear weapons, but they want to overthrow the Iranian government. We shouldn't base our foreign policy with Iran on that goal.

Posted by roger | October 29, 2007 5:11 PM

Matt: Now that Judith Miller is no longer spending her time "defending the First Amendment," she probably could write some articles to enlighten Mr El Barradei. Mr. Libby isn't going to jail so he can be her source.

I mean it's not like a great American newspaper is going to pen a series of articles that are absolutely full of factual errors and phony intelligence, is it?

Posted by Matthew | October 29, 2007 5:41 PM

The interesting thing is that there isn't even any evidence that Iran wants nukes, let alone have a program to develop any.

A case can easily be made that they should want nukes, given that they're surrounded by nuclear armed countries: Russia, Pakistan, Israel, the US.

But Russia and Pakistan are unlikely to attack Iran - unless Pakistan and Afghanistan gets taken over by Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban, who don't like Iran. Even then, the threat would be minimal. The whole scenario is speculative at this point - certainly not enough to justify the expenditures necessary to develop nuclear weapons.

And Iran would be defenseless against the US and Israel even if they did have a couple nukes and a delivery system. The disparity in numbers of weapons and the inability of Iran to produce a second-strike capability any time within the next couple decades would seem to demonstrate that an Iranian nuke program would have to be strictly defensive. Any offensive use of nukes by Iran would be a disaster for Iran.

Even an Israeli think tank said that this past week. They said the Mullahs would almost certainly act "logically" in that situation.

Combine these facts with the fact that the Supreme Leader of Iran has issued a fatwa against Iranian possession of nuclear weapons, and that Iranian analysts have said that having nukes would act against Iran's interests in engaging the region in its favor, and a good case can be made that Iran not only doesn't want nukes, it has little need of them.

The SOLE justification for an Iranian nuke would be defensive in the sense that an imminent external attempt to overthrow the regime would trigger a "doomsday" scenario of a first-strike from Iran. This would have no effect on the US calculation because Iran will not be able to hit the US for many years yet with even one missile - and by that time the US would be able to intercept it - or even hit it before it was launched.

But it would mean Israel would never be able to attempt to overthrow the Iran regime. This is because Israel cannot afford a first strike, despite having a second-strike capability. So regime change would have to be taken off the table by Israel and the US.

Beyond that, Iranian nukes would do nothing to alter Iran's situation in the region and could harm it by causing other countries such as Saudi Arabia to offset Iran's advantage. And the Iranians appear to be aware of that.

What the Iranians probably DO want is a nuclear weapons information program. Any military worth its salt would like to have a complete set of plans for nuclear weapons and as much information on them as possible, even if they have no intentions or capability of building one any time soon.

There is also an advantage to "nuclear ambiguity." Everyone knows Japan has both the nuclear fuel cycle and the tech knowledge to build nukes - but they don't. But they could. And China knows it. Just as Israel has never admitted having nukes, Iran may well believe it is advantageous to have the knowledge and the resources to build a nuke without actually building one.

In any event, military action against Iran for having any of these policies is first of all, illegal under the UN Charter, and secondly, a recipe for disaster. The quickest way to get Iran to actually want and build nukes is to attack them when they don't actually want to or are building any.

The quickest way to insure Iran will not build nukes is to engage the country, make it a neutral partner if not an ally, and support its nuclear energy program under the NPT with full IAEA support.

And of course demand that Israel disarm its nuclear arsenal. It's just ridiculous to denounce Iran as a "proliferator" while allowing Israel to have unlimited nuclear weapons development.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 29, 2007 5:44 PM

I think Blix indeed tried "middle road" and ElBaradei was much more final in his conclusions if not outright decisive.

I think Blix demanded more inspections and ElBaradei presented final conclusions.

Posted by piotr | October 29, 2007 6:03 PM

Eli,

Of course the Iranians are enriching uranium at Natanz. My question is whether you have any solid evidence that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade at Natanz or elsewhere.

Posted by Dan Kervick | October 29, 2007 6:20 PM

Some context. El Baradei's remarks as Director General of the IAEA, excerpted:

Regarding the implementation of Agency safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Dr. ElBaradei made four points:

* The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran;

* Iran has provided the Agency with additional information and access needed to resolve a number of long outstanding issues, such as the scope and nature of past plutonium experiments;

* Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence-building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak – "this is regrettable", he commented; and

* While the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, Iran and the Secretariat agreed last month on a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues.

Follow the link for the actual full text of the remarks.

Posted by El Cid | October 29, 2007 6:28 PM

I wish Eli could personally tell a group of Iranian children that they have to die so he can sleep soundly without wetting the bed every night. I'm sure they'll understand that their sacrifice will all be worth it.

Posted by Rob | October 29, 2007 6:31 PM