IAEA: Iran Nuclear Report 'Outrageous'

U.N. Blasts House Committee Claims On Tehran's Weapon-Making Capability

(AP)  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 was first reported on by The Washington Post. It 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, 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.

[ronniehm]

Grazingterrorist, let the adults talk. Clestes and I are doing fine without you and your drive-by insults. Didn't the Pope make you mad? Go burn down an embassy or something. We're talking respectfully here.

[grazinggoat]

HotRodOki, if you beleive (and that's normal) what the president is tellin ya, then you're right. But see as we have put it in previous postings, the president is given some erronous information as mentioned in the letter sent to the president of the special committe on Intelligence. Don't regurgitate what others feed you with. Be more critical of situations and ask for accounts. Politicians are, and expect to be accountable.
So that is easy to invent situations and/or distort facts... which is the case now, as much it was the case before the invasion of Iraq. In both cases the president is fed with erronnous information. In this case, now, the one who wrote the report pretended that CIA was not aware of facts regarding the Nuclear capacity of Iran. Hey this guy knows more than the CIA. That is dangerous...

[ronniehm]

I don't think I'm misunderstanding you. I think I'm agreeing with you on most of it. You don't have to convince me that Iran's on a totally different wavelength. They held a cartoon contest to make a point about how our cultures are the same (although it actually made our point that we're better than they are). THEY think we're all the same. I just think it's a stupid way for the president of Iran to serve his people. If it's a cultural thing or a testosterone thing, doesn't matter to me. It's a suicidal way to run a country. Saddam knows that. He, more than anyone, led people to believe he was a big dog. Iran has a lot of power in the middle east, and that country controls a lot more weapons than just the ones inside its borders. No, they might not bomb you, but there's a very strong possibility that they'll have a receipt for the next bomb that goes off. Post 9/11, we NEED proof, not assurances from people who have conducted restricted inspections.

[clestes-2009]

You still aren't understanding me. I don't know how to explain it more plainly.

Your view point is too narrow. No matter that you think the choice is black and white, "either they save face or they save lives" it is NOT THAT SIMPLE. To you yes, to them NO. There are all sorts of shades of grey in between.

I know you don't want to hear this, but you need to read more about Middle east culture, stuff written my ambassadors that have served over there. I have and I have come away from those reading realizing just how far apart our cultures are. Further even than I thought. And there is no room for thinking, well ours is better. On what grounds? maybe they think the same thing about theirs.

All I can tell you is that Iran has no nukes to bomb us or anyone with. I am completely confident of that fact. If you don't believe me, there is nothing that will change your mind. But I don't worry at night about being bombed. And I am not at all confused by the interplay between the Bush admin and Iran. It is going pretty much as I expected. There are a lot of undercurrents happening that are not apparent.

[ronniehm]

Regardless of who typed it in the computer, the report is based on the findings of a committee of Democrats and Republicans, and as you point out, it "chastised the CIA and other agencies for not providing evidence to back assertions that Iran is building nuclear weapons." Incidentally, that line doesn't seem like it belongs in a report that was attempting to dupe someone, but the debate is fruitless. I could give people a tour of half my home to prove that I don't have a pool table, and if some people spot a pool cue, does that prove anything? They can have a pointless argument all day, but there's really only one way to settle it. Bottom line is Iran can choose to save lives or save face, and the ironic part of Iran's attempt to save face is that very few in the world would look down on Iran for allowing full inspections. Their image would skyrocket.

[clestes-2009]

Did you read the article in the Wash post and further the pdf file of the actual report? Here is a bit of it:

"The committee report, written by a single Republican staffer with a hard-line position on Iran, chastised the CIA and other agencies for not providing evidence to back assertions that Iran is building nuclear weapons."

This is the same guy who wrote the report that Bush used as justification for invading Iraq. After the Iraq mistake, he should never be allowed to even serve on the atomic committee.

As for saving face, no matter what you think, this guy has a different view point. It is ALL about saving face. Their culture is a lot more subtle than ours.

[ronniehm]

Yes, I agree about Iran jumping up and down like an annoying little yip dog, but I don't think the U.S. comes close to the little dog's desire to eat the big dog.

About the report, it was not prepared by Bush. It was written by a team of Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives. If there are errors, they need to be fixed, otherwise Bush might use the information and people would call HIM a liar.

About Iran, saving face is hardly a good enough reason to deny full inspections. And it's not just the U.S. that's proposing sanctions. It's a group thing. Iran is a little dog taunting a whole room full of big dogs, and the UN is hardly what I would call satisfied with Iran. After 9/11, we have every right to place the burden of proof on Iran. It is no longer acceptable for us to flip a coin every time a piece of intelligence comes in. We're trying to save a lot more than face.

[clestes-2009]

RonnieHM, think more broadly and consider Iran's position. Here is the great USA, foaming at the mouth, making all sorts of claims and a great deal of noise, but unable to do a thing. Don't you realize that Iran's prez is enjoying himself, taunting and teasing Bush.

Think about like this. USA is a big dog, Iran is a little dog. Big dog wants to eat little dog alive. Little dog knows he can't, but is taking a lot joy in jumping up and down in front of big dog yapping and taunting him.

The Iran prez must save face here. He cannot simple open all his doors and say have a look see. He would lose the respect of his people and other countries. That would appear like caving in to pressure. But, he is also smart enough not to push too far. He allows enough inspection to satisfy the UN Atomic Commission. If they are satisfied, then the rest of the UN will not join with the US to impose sanctions or agree to invade.

[clestes-2009]

No, no, no people! The Bush admin is only trying to scare you. Don't you rememeber all the fear tatics used to whip up hysteria before the invasion of Iraq?

The UN Atomic Energy committee knows what they are talking about! They knew what they were talking about before when they said very plainly Iraq had no nuclear bomb capability. They are over there actually in the country inspecting. There are no US inspectors there (which is because Iran is enjoying taunting Bush). The Bush admin has absolutely no facts for these claims of Iran having the ability to make a bomb.

Bush has been trying to make a cause to invade Iran for 2 years or more. That is why he pushed Israel into invaded Lebanon. He was hoping to get Iran to respond and have a reason to invade.

For God's don't be fooled again! If there were any reason to believe Iran had nukes, there would be plenty of voices raised in protest. All I hear is the Bush Whitehouse voice making the same claims towards Iran as he used against Iraq.

Bush ignored that and used the fear of the bomb to justify invaded Iraq.

[ronniehm]

What could possibly be the reason to deny unrestricted inspections of Iran's nuclear stuff? I can only think of two: they have something to hide or they want us to think they have something. And since when does the IAEA have access to U.S. intelligence?