Fine Print
Read by Brits, who say Iranian nuke program continued past 2003. They must know something U.S. Intelligence doesn’t. AP:
VIENNA, Austria (AP) — Iran may have continued work on nuclear weapons past 2003, the year U.S. intelligence says such activities stopped, a senior British diplomat said Monday.
…
Asked whether the information presented to the IAEA’s 35 board member nations indicated that Tehran continued such activities past that date, Smith said: “Certainly some of the dates … went beyond 2003.”
Oh. They got it from the IAEA. So maybe the IAEA is useful after all. Maybe that explains this:
The report called weaponization “the one major … unsolved issue relevant to the nature of Iran’s nuclear program.”
I’m no rocket scientist, but that sounds like a pretty big issue. Maybe, because it’s the Brits, it will carry some weight. As opposed to the Israelis. I wouldn’t count on it, though. there’s a lot of aspirational cognition out there.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:29 pm on Monday, February 25, 2008
3 Responses to “Fine Print”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
The problem for the West isn’t that Iran has continued their nuclear program. They haven’t actually managed to hide that from anyone with a competent intelligence program (unfortunately, that’s not us). The problem is that The Powers That Be in the West simply cannot, or will not, accept this reality. Some are bought off (the UN). Some are willfully blind (our socialist “elites”). But we’re all going to pay the price.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:06 am
The power’s that be fervently wish that their fantasies about Iran are true, therefore they must be true. It’s their reality. Unfortunately, the rest of us must live in an actual reality where we have allowed an avowed enemy to work to arm themselves with nukes. These same people will be the ones who will say, after a nuke hits Israel, that we must now accommodate Iran further because, you know, they have nukes.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:08 am
Please ignore the superfluous possessive in “power’s.” It’s just a freudian slip.