Patterico's Pontifications

2/18/2010

IAEA Report Warns of Iran Nuclear Weapon

Filed under: International,Obama — DRJ @ 4:35 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

A leaked International Atomic Energy Agency report warns that Iran has begun enriching uranium and may be trying to develop a nuclear warhead:

“The UN nuclear watchdog has expressed concern that Iran may currently be trying to develop a nuclear payload for a missile.
***
The report also confirmed Iran had produced a small batch of uranium enriched to the higher 20% level.

Until now, Iran has produced uranium enriched to 3.5% for power stations.

It says it needs the more highly enriched uranium for a reactor producing medical isotopes.

Western powers fear Iran is heading towards enriching uranium to 90% – to produce a nuclear weapon.”

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs termed the report evidence of “the failure of the Iranian government to live up to its international obligations.” Gibbs continued that “we’ve always said that if Iran failed to live up to those international obligations, that there would be consequences.”

— DRJ

29 Responses to “IAEA Report Warns of Iran Nuclear Weapon”

  1. The IAEA must expect Iran to detonate a test soon for them to be leaking this. The IAEA has been spending years pretending that the Iranians were farther behind than they really were, covering up for Iran and undermining US efforts to organize efforts against Iran. For them to make this kind of admission, even in a leak, means that a test is no more than months away.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  2. And to think that shit-for-brains Mohamed ElBaradei was handed the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize.

    Protector of Iran.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    GeneralMalaise (e8d02c)

  3. Gibbs continued that “we’ve always said that if Iran failed to live up to those international obligations, that there would be consequences.”

    The consequences will be that Obummer won’t bow quite as deep when he meets with Imadamnnutjob.

    peedoffamerican (f0f277)

  4. This points up the absolute lie that was perpetrated in the 2007 Intelligence Assessment put out by a bunch of liars at the State Dept where they stated with great confidence that Iran had stopped development of nuclear weapons in 2003.
    DC is badly in need of some serious vector control.

    AD - RtR/OS! (2215b9)

  5. consequences? what? is Ear Leader going to jam their airwaves with recordings of all his speeches 24/7? litter the cities with photos of the First Klingon in spandex? maybe Gates & Gibbs will do a comedy routine…..

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  6. “consequences” would mean the little president man would have to give his gay for-decorative-purposes-only peace prize thingy back

    happyfeet (713679)

  7. No! Surely you jest!

    htom (412a17)

  8. No shit, Sherlock!

    SicSemperTyrannus (f3c708)

  9. Wow–I’m sure the very large wet noodle that the Obama Superweapon Tech Team has been working on developing will cow them into submission.

    Memo to Israel: You’re on your own, suckers–the Messiah isn’t taking your calls.

    M. Scott Eiland (c552ec)

  10. Obama will call the Mullahs big poopy – pants, then have his minions blame Boosh and, somehow, the tea partiers. That’s the sum totality of their strategy, such as it is.

    Dmac (799abd)

  11. “. . .if Iran failed to live up to those international obligations, that there would be consequences.”

    No soup for you!

    Official Internet Data Office (99772e)

  12. “. . .if Iran failed to live up to those international obligations, that there would be consequences.”

    One of these days, Alice…Pow!, right in the kisser….

    iconoclast (e235f2)

  13. And ElBaradei is a Muslim…who really expects him to do anything other than cover for Iran?

    iconoclast (e235f2)

  14. In 2007 when Republicans scoffed at the lies and promised Iran was still attempting to build nukes, a lot of liberals called us crazy.

    Just as they call Bush crazy for stopping Iraq from their nuclear ambitions (real ambitions that had to be put to an end that was out of the UN’s control).

    the UN is leading us to more war and more violence and more tyranny. They are of no use whatsover to peace loving peoples.

    They recently finished retrofitting at least one B2 spirit with a larger bomb-bay for 2 of those special massive deep penetrating bombs. Obama could have Iran’s nuclear ambitions stopped within a week if he gave the order. Sad thing is, Iran could really, really mess up the world economy and energy prices. I think we still need to bomb what facilities we are aware of as soon as we can, to reduce whatever damage eventually occurs.

    If Iran were to play the card of hampering oil trade, China and Russia would not prevent us from stopping them, sinking their navy, blowing up their planes, etc. A humbled Iran would be better for the world.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  15. I’m surprised that this IAEA from story Reuters hasn’t gotten more ink/pixels:
    IAEA suspects Syrian nuclear activity at bombed site
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE61H2MT20100218

    Can we out-source our intel gathering to Israel?

    SaintGeorgeGentile (dc531b)

  16. My brother is lives in an extremely small town in East Texas. He’s a green-grocer. When he’s not working he fishes for bass and watches NASCAR. He doesn’t read news sites or blogs. He’s just a regular guy trying to make a living.

    I haven’t talked to him lately, but I’m pretty sure he knows Iran is building nuclear warheads.

    Maybe he and Gibbs could trade places. I would trust my brother’s common sense a whole lot more than Gibbs’ blatherings.

    However, Gibbs can sure give a good beat-down to that Washington press corpse.

    (Just wait, I know what’s coming).

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  17. “we’ve always said that if Iran failed to live up to those international obligations, that there would be consequences.”

    What isn’t said is that those “consequences” aren’t likely to be anything the mullahs in Iran should worry about.

    Blacque Jacques Shellacque (5ef35b)

  18. we’ve always said that…

    Spoken, I’m sure, as if it meant something definitive.

    There are a lot of things they have always said. What they have always done is another thing entirely.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  19. We shouldn’t allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, period. I have consistently said that I will do everything in my power to prevent them from having it, and I have not ruled out military force as an option.

    Barack Obama, May 2008
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90289419

    Note how what he says is what is consistent, not what he does. He still acts like a Senator.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  20. Shhh, we’ve now placed Iran on double-secret probation.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  21. There’s nothing new about this, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2009/1006/p02s01-usfp.html

    ian cormac (9575ac)

  22. Iran understands only one language: force. This is one reason we still respect George Bush. He was a real cowboy president. He understood these idiots.

    Nigerian Observer. (ad3a3b)

  23. I wish someone would ask the Obama supporters something along the lines of “missing that cowboy diplomacy yet?”

    Dmac (799abd)

  24. It’s the failure of the Iranian government to live up to its international obligations, not the failure of this administration to convince or compell the Iranian government to live up to its international obligations.

    They’ve been bad. They talked to Obama until it was too late for us to do anything. It’s not Obama’s fault because if Obama thought there was anything in his power that could prevent them from having nuclear weapons, he’d do it for sure. That’s what he said and I’m sure he meant every word.

    So when they get their nuclear weapons, at least we will know that Obama meant to stop them.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  25. Actions speak louder than words. We have a saying in Africa: the child that will not listen to words will listen to the whip.

    Nigerian Observer (afb735)

  26. We can only imagine, with great trepidation, what that whip will be.

    AD - RtR/OS! (02a1f9)

  27. Amphipolis – hell, he already got a Nobel prize for his good intentions.

    JD (f76b99)

  28. In the early part of the 21st century there was one world leader who meant it when he said, “Enough already. This is your last chance.” Even if you didn’t like him, you could count on him to do what he said.

    The Russians didn’t believe him, the French didn’t believe him, the UN didn’t believe him, and the tyrant in question, Saddam Hussein, didn’t believe him.

    But he is gone, along with any resembling him. The populace thought they would be better off with the parenting style of an ineffective nag in charge of international diplomacy.

    So Iran can do what it wants. The N. Koreans will do what they want. The Soviets will do what they want in Georgia and elsewhere when they want.

    Serious question/comment. It seems to me that there are two kind of people in regards to Iran and nuc’s; one kind takes them at their word to annihilate Israel when they have the chance, the other kind can’t believe they seriously mean it.

    For those who are at least afraid that they really mean it, what (other than tactical) choice does Israel have? Obviously those who think Iran “can’t seriously mean it” will give no allowance for Israel to act.

    Any thought to Israel communicating directly to the people of Iran (via radio, leaflets in missiles/ by stealth bomber/ by ??), “Look, we have nothing against you, but you don’t like your leader, we don’t like your leader, and he has promised to destroy us. Please do something about him before we have to.”

    Of course, so far that is exactly the kind of democratic self-determination that Obama has refused to support.

    MD in Philly (e347b2)

  29. @26. Let’s just say that it was enough to desuade the child from being a bad boy.

    Nigerian Observer (afb735)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1080 secs.