Mohamed ElBaradei Head of the IAEA feels that we are all over reacting, after all Iran is six to twelve months from having enough nuclear fuel to produce a bomb. ONLY SIX to TWELVE Months? And He doesn’t have a problem with that? Of course not..the IAEA Head might be trying to sabotage the entire Iran sanction process. Why would he do that”?:

• Revenge: In 2005, the Bush Administration opposed his selection for a third term as director-general, but they failed to get much support in the Board of Governors. El-Baradei’s support of Iran is the most effective form of retaliation against the United States.

• Its Easier than a confrontation: El-Baradei may have chosen what he sees as the path of least resistance by acquiescing to Iran’s aspirations to become a nuclear power. This was also the dominant view in Europe, at least until the rise of Ahmadinejad and the realization that stable deterrence based on the U.S.-Soviet Cold War model was not applicable to a nuclear-armed Iran

• Trying to Prevent a US attack: After having failed to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the IAEA’s director-general may now be overcompensating by embracing the Iranian claims in the hope of preventing a military attack on Iran. His angry reaction to unconfirmed reports that Israel destroyed a North Korean-built nuclear reactor in Syria, and the demand that information on NPT violations be provided to the IAEA for action, can also be understood as an attempt to salvage the agency’s severely damaged reputation. But if this is El-Baradei’s objective, his complicity in the Iranian effort to acquire nuclear weapons and the obvious attempt to cover-up the evidence is counterproductive. The further that Iran advances, the higher the probability of confrontation and military action in the year. In fact the IAEA Chief has threatened to resigned if there is an attack (see video below):

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

IAEA Chief ElBaradei: Iran Can Produce Enough Enriched Uranium for a Nuclear Bomb in Six Months to a Year

The following are excerpts from an interview with IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei. The interview aired on Al-Arabiya TV on June 20, 2008. To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit If It Wants To Produce Nuclear Weapons, Iran Would Have To “Leave The NPT, Expel The IAEA Inspectors, And… It Would Need At Least Six Months to One Year” Mohamed ElBaradei: “If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT, expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least… Considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has…” Interviewer: “How much time would it need?” ElBaradei: “It would need at least six months to one year. Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon.” Interviewer: “Excuse me, I would like to clarify this for our viewers. If Iran decides today to expel the IAEA from the country, it will need six months…” ElBaradei: “Or one year, at least…” Interviewer:”… to produce [nuclear] weapons?” ElBaradei: “It would need this period to produce a weapon, and to obtain highly-enriched uranium in sufficient quantities for a single nuclear weapon.” […] “A Military Strike [Against Iran] Would Be the Worst Thing Possible” “In my view, a military strike would be the worst thing possible. It would turn the Middle East into a ball of fire.” Interviewer: “It would be worse than sanctions?” ElBaradei: “Much worse, because a military strike would mean, first and foremost, that even if Iran does not produce nuclear weapons today, it would implement a so-called ‘crash course,’ or an accelerated plan to produce a nuclear weapon, with the agreement and blessing of all the Iranians – even the Iranians living in the West.” […] Interviewer: “Dr. ElBaradei, what do the Iranian officials tell you when you confront them about the need for more transparency?” ElBaradei: “They say there will be more transparency, but at the end of the day, I’d rather wait to see this transparency. […] “I always think of resigning in the event of a military strike.” Interviewer: “You will resign in the event that…” ElBaradei: “If military force is used, I would conclude that there is no mechanism left for me to defend.” Interviewer: “This is a threat directed at the Americans – if you strike, I will resign.” ElBaradei: “I am not doing this for material profit. If I was working in the private sector, I would… I am doing this out of the conviction that I am defending shared values. If we deviate from these shared values…” Interviewer: “So there is no justification for an attack…” “There Will Be No Point in My Continuing My Work If Military Force Is Used” ElBaradei: “The day I believe that the international system has begun to collapse is the day I will resign.” […] Interviewer: “If the world reaches a consensus that there is no solution but to attack Iran, would you still resign? What if Europe, America, and the entire West agree that the only resolution is a military one?” ElBaradei: “I don’t think that what we are seeing today in Iran poses a clear, imminent, and immediate danger.” Interviewer: “But in a year or two, it could become…” ElBaradei: “If this happens, it will be a different story, but if a military strike is launched against Iran now, in my opinion, I will have no choice but to…” Interviewer: “So there is no justification for a strike against Iran today.” ElBaradei: “None whatsoever. There will be no point in my continuing my work if military force is used at present.”