Mohamed ElBaradei: Useful Idiot or Trojan Horse?

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of IAEA, keeps saying over and over again what Washington doesn't want to hear: "There is no proof that Iran tries to acquire atomic weapons." And a few weeks ago, a new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate seemed to confirm that there is no proof of on-going nuclear weapons program in Iran since the fall of 2003.

In his Vienna apartment, ElBaradei accepted an interview by the French weekly magazine Paris-Match. Here are a few excerpts and comments:

Paris-Match: A new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluded that there had been no on-going nuclear weapons program in Iran since the fall of 2003? Is it a victory for you?

ElBaradei: It's a nice Christmas gift! We have some concerns about the Iranian nuclear program but this doesn't mean that Iran is a impending threat. And this doesn't mean that we have proof that Iran tries to acquire nuclear weapons. This report gives diplomacy new opportunities. We need to stop the war logic.

My comments: And you implicitly admit that you have no sure proof that Iran does NOT try to acquire nuclear weapons, Mr ElB ...

P-M: Is Iran threatening world peace?

ElB: In the short term I would say, no. In the long term, it's different. Several countries don't trust Iranian leaders.

My comments: Tell me, Mr ELB, what do you think? Are they trustworthy? What does it mean: "in the long-term it's different"?

P-M: After this NIE report, there'll be no American raid against Iran?

ElB: I hope so. A raid against Iran would have negative effects. This would solve no problem. First, Iranians have no big nuclear infrastructure. Destroying it would only delay their program for a few months. Then they would restart their nuclear activities in a clandestine way. And let's speak about the consequences in the region! The Muslim world is angry, feels humiliated. A war would draw further extremism.

My comments: So when activities are clandestine, it's though to detect it, right? Give me some proof that part of the program isn't clandestine already. And, oh Mr ElB, I forgot: you are yourself a Muslim with a biased view. Stop it with this leitmotiv of the angry and humiliated people. Humiliated by whom? Their own leaders, their own sick society based on a fascist religion.

P-M: France, amongst other countries want new sanctions against Iran. What is your position about that?

ElB: These countries are free to take this position, even if I have my ideas on the question. I'm pretty sure about one thing: without negotiations, there'll be no long-lasting solution. The Iranian nuclear problem is only part of a complex situation involving the Middle East and Muslim world security. To establish confidence between parts, you have to talk about Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, you have to talk about extremism, human rights, poverty. Many people in this region have to live on less than two dollars a day. Is this acceptable? This people' ll become extremists. Because they have nothing to loose, because they feel humiliated.

My comments: READ: "by negotiations, I mean that the Western world has to honor every demand of the Muslim world." And Mr ElB, yes lets talk about poverty. 2 dollars a day? Unacceptable! Especially when you realize that these people are sailing on a sea of oil! So give us a break : there is more than enough money within the Muslim world to solve the poverty problems. The western world? It does more than enough, buying your oil. The truth is: YOUR world, Mr ElB, should feel ASHAMED, not only humiliated. And after all, what's your job? You're the director general of IAEA, you're not supposed to do politics. And as we speak about your function, I would have expected to see a physicist fill the position, not a legal expert.

P-M: Iran did sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT). Why then forbid them to produce nuclear energy for civil purposes?

ElB: By law, Iran indeed has the right to produce nuclear energy. But, as Iran hid part of its program for years, the international community doesn't trust them anymore. The Iranian case raises fundamental questions about the NPT and its purpose. That's why I suggest that uranium enrichment should be submitted to multilateral control, even for Western countries. Western super powers have to understand that if they want a long-term system, it must be fair. When they signed the NPT the nuclear states - USA, France, UK, China and Russia - committed themselves to massive disarmament. They are far from it!
If Iranians created a nuclear program, it's for economical reasons but also because they don't feel secure.

Comments: Oh! So they already did hide part of the program! Reading you, I thought this would be the case only if USA smashes their nuclear stuff ... Tell me, you're sure they don't keep on doing it, only with more efficiency. And tell me how a country would feel more secure with ONLY a CIVILIAN nuclear program?

P-M: Thus you understand the argument: "if super powers, Israel and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, why can't we?"

ElB: Sure! If a country doesn't feel secure, acquiring nuclear weapons - or at least an uranium enrichment program - is a means of protection. We can't go on living in a world divided between states which have nuclear weapons and states which don't have it. Nuclear states say to the rest of the world: "We need nuclear weapons for our security but you can't have it because that's not good for you, it threatens the world's security!" That's not fair. Super powers have to set the example. For the first time in a US presidential election, several candidates, namely Barack Obama and John Edwards, committed themselves for nuclear weapons abolition. That's a good thing.

Comments: READ : "Let's hope Americans vote Obama (or at least Edwards), a new Jimmy Carter for America; my Iranian friends would find that so funny!" By the way, yes Mr ElB, the Western world needs nuclear capacity to protect itself against evil minded people like Ahmadinejad, El Assad, Kim Jong Il, to name but a few. And yes, some countries should NEVER possess a nuclear weapon, because they are managed by fanatic, intolerant and racist leaders. And, my dear American friends, I beg you, please: no votes for Obama nor Edwards.

P-M: Is a new Hiroshima possible?

ElB: If we don't change our system, yes. There are still many nuclear weapons on the planet. Maybe you'll awake one morning to discover that half the planet has vanished. Because of a computer bug, perhaps. Nobody realizes that we live in a very precarious world.

Comment: Wow! This one is gross ... If someone still had a doubt that you're a dishonest and biased individual, this should clear his mind. Don't tell me you really believe that our leaders haven't thought about that and that they haven't secured the system.

P-M: The new French administration is very tough about the Iranian problem. Do you have the impression that their foreign politicies have changed?

ElB: (Silence) I would rather wait before answering. I have to meet Mr Kouchner (Minister of Foreign Affairs) in February in Paris. I hope that France will go on with its traditional politicies as a valuable partner.

My comments: READ: "I still can't believe these stupid Frenchies did elect Sarkozy. Soft belly Chirac gave us such a good feeling! Come on, Frenchies! We all know you have an anti-USA tendency. Don't deceive us! We want a divided western world!".

P-M: For more than 40 years, you've been living outside your native country. Do you still feel Egyptian?

ElB: You may think it's a cliché, but the world is my home. I lived in New York, in Geneva, in Vienna. I just bought a house in Gers, France. To me, borders and nationalities sound more and more superficial.

My comments: Oh yes, this one is such a "cliché"! Nothing beats it if you want to convince us that you're Mr Nice, Mr Useful Idiot or worse ...

- Filed on Articles in "Iran Nuke Alert (temp. k.a. as the NIE Hoax)", cat. Iran -