Iran: Where is the IAEA?

So was there or was there not an explosion at the Fordo site in Iran last week? 

According to a story published today in Times of London:

 An explosion is believed to have damaged Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, which is being used to enrich uranium, Israeli intelligence officials have told The Times. Sources in Tel Aviv said yesterday that they thought the explosion happened last week. The Israeli Government is investigating reports that it led to extensive structural damage and 200 workers had been trapped inside.

But to make things more interesting, the Americans are contradicting this statement.

According to Reuters:

The United States does not believe media reports about an explosion at an Iranian uranium enrichment plant, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on Monday.

So who is right and who is wrong?

Well, first lets see if the Iranians are going to change their current official stance, which states “there was no explosion at Fordo“.

If there is no change there, then lets hear what the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has to say about the alleged explosion.

The IAEA sends its inspectors to Fordo in Iran to check the quantity (ie. Kg) as well as level of uranium enrichment (ie.20%) at Fordo.

If for any reason they are blocked from visiting the Fordo during their next visit to Iran, then that could be interpreted as a sign that something is wrong.

But if they are allowed to visit as per usual and they find nothing has been changed or damaged, then WND which broke the story first is going to lose a lot of credibility. So is everyone else who said that there was an explosion in Fordo.

6 thoughts on “Iran: Where is the IAEA?

  1. Regardless of whether or not there was an explosion, do you think that the Iranians will ultimately be deterred from going nuclear?

  2. i think IAEA already published a report and denies the explosion ,lol…. IAEA have a rather unique response mechanism to Israelis demands and statement.why they dont investigate Israel nuclear program to start with ?

  3. Given the depth of the Fordo Installation, there is only one weapon that could have “shook” the ground, in the report radius of the explosion: America’s new 30,000 lb. MOP bomb. And there is, only, one delivery – system that could have entered Qom, Iran’s SAM guarded airspace: America’s B 2 Stealth Bomber (an aircraft also big enough, to carry the newest MOP)
    The problem? The explosion took place around 11:45 AM, Tehran time, meaning that the B – 2 was flying without the protection, of nightfall. So, the American’s, either used a “new” aircraft, or the January – smog – condition around Tehran and Qom is so thick, a B – 2 can use it’s cover.
    Look at Ehud Barak’s recent comments, “about President Obama’s use of planned surgical strikes against Iranian nuclear sites. The obvious is in the way the US has denied the credibility of the reported bombing.

  4. I’m not fooladish enough to beviele that miladiadtant Islam is someadhow paciadfist, or even that Islam is inheradently peaceadful or freedom-loving. Without devolvading into a Dawkins-esque, equal-opportunity-offensive rant, I’ll leave the disadcusadsion of faith ata0that.I am also not fooladish enough to susadpect that the muladlahs who are adroit enough to have kept a tight lid on their sociadety for 28a0years are crazy enough to attack a nuclear-armed nation with a well-documented (and well-deserved) paraadnoia streak. The U.S. — crazy as it seems to be to me — is not crazy enough to attack a nuclear-armed North Korea, nor is India crazy enough to attack Pakistan (or visa-versa). Which brings me to a secadond point: Have you conadsidadered why we have not taken a side in the Pakistan-India tiff, when both of those counadtries are nuclear armed, run by miladliadtant nationadaladists, and have a near-constant boradder disadpute? The U.S. has peradsued a poladicy of bribading both sides, which has the side-effect of givading the U.S. a larger voice in their affairs — a voice used to keep a lid on Kashmir.Bush’s recent policy-shift in favor of “Nukular India” is widely (and coradrectly, I should add) seen as an unmitadiadgated disadasadter. It was designed to be a preadvenadtaadtive step against the radadiadcal Muslims in the Pakistani inteladliadgence seradvices — backading the other horse before a race has even been schedaduled. It’s predadiadcated (as is your view of Iran, I should add), on the notion that the radadiadcals will evenadtuadally sieze conadtrol and so it makes more sense to simadply abanaddon attempts to stop them in favor of planadning for a “favoradable” nuclear exchange. Of course, by betrayading Musharraf, it weakadens his conadtrol over his govadernadment, which makes a Muslim takeover that much easier.So far as the Holocaust, I’m obviadously not in favor of a secadond Jewish Holocaust; I’m simadply equally opposed to an Iranian Holocaust. And it is very, very well-understood that any attack by Iran on Israel would be met with nuclear aniadhiadlaadtion. The “muladlahs” may hate Israel. They may be anti-semites. But like most reliadgious leadaders, they love being in charge even more. Bloodying their noses will not calm them down and make them see reaadson, nor does the path you sugadgest have any alteradnaadtive but an evenadtual genocide.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s