IAEA's El-Baradei in Iran's pocket?

A research analyst whose work crosses paths with the IAEA, has contacted Chad at In the Bullpen with information that members of the IAEA may be in Iran's pocket.

Chris Charlier, who headed up a team of 15 IAEA inspectors tasked with inspecting Iran’s nuclear program since 2003, is breaking his earlier vow of silence. Vow isn’t the best word to describe what has happened though. According to Charlier, Mohammad El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, dismissed Charlier from this case after the Iranian government asked El-Baradei to relieve Charlier of his duties. El-Baradei complied with the Iranian request and now Charlier is revealing the conditions that he and his team worked under within Iran.

“I am not a politician, I am a technician and as such the only thing which interests me is whether Iran’s nuclear program is a civil or military one”, Charlier states. “The inspections have to reach an unambiguous conclusion”.

“I believe they are hiding what they are doing with their nuclear activities. It is probable they are doing things of which we have no knowledge.”

Inside countless memos and work reports, Charlier notes the results of inspections and lists the tricks and deceptions of the Tehran rulers, which leads the inspectors in Vienna to a single conclusion: based on pieces of the puzzle gathered by Charlier, “Tehran is obviously making a bomb.” --IAEA’s Concessions to Iran Include Firing Key Inspector July 9, 2006 (go read it all) (further information at Regime Change Iran

Today:

The resentment of my colleges in the IAEA and their astonishment only grew when it came out that in recognition of El-Baradei’s conduct Iran sent him ‘gifts’ - including extremely expensive traditional carpets of the highest quality (one Persian carpet could be valued as high as 50,000 euros.)

Either ElBaradei knows something Charlier didn’t or ElBaradei is in the pocket of the Mullahs. Both are worthy of dicsussion and it’s mind boggling why Charlier’s firing did not receive more press attention in the least to debunk why he was fired. --"Iran’s Ties with ElBaradei" from Chad at In the Bullpen August 25, 2006(go read it all)

Ollie North shares a conversation he had with a friend, who asked Ollie:

"Does anyone in the United States understand what's happening today?" he asked as we sat down over cups of strong coffee. "Look at this," he said, gesturing to headlines in the stack of newspapers he had placed on the table. "The world is at the brink of a cataclysm with radical Islam, and no one in the U.S. government seems to know it. Washington is stunningly naive.

After pointing out everything that is going on in the world today, Ollie has this insight:

In 1974, "we the people" elected a majority in the U.S. Congress who decided that the Vietnam War was un-winnable. The Congress proceeded to "de-fund" U.S. military and logistics support for the South Vietnamese. By April of '75 the disaster was foregone. This time the outcome -- a nuclear-armed Iran with client-states in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon -- would be catastrophic.

Will we elect an anti-war, "get-out-now" Congress in November? It all depends on whether those who cast ballots this autumn are wise enough to understand what we are up against or are instead, as my friend put it, "stunningly naive."

The shenanigans going on at the United Nations and the IAEA should shock us out of any naivete.

Charles Krauthammer, talking about multilateralism, says:

North Korea went nuclear a long time ago. Our time to act was during the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations. Nothing was done. And nothing can be done now. Once a country has gone nuclear, there is no return. The nukes themselves act as a deterrent against military measures. And no diplomat, however mellifluous, is going to talk a nuclear North Korea into dismantling the one thing that gives it any significance in the world. . . .

The point of the current elaborate exercise in multilateral diplomacy [with Iran] is to slightly alter that future calculation. By demonstrating extraordinary forbearance and accommodation, perhaps we will have purchased the acquiescence of our closest allies -- Britain, Germany and, yes, France -- to a military strike on that fateful day when diplomacy has run its course.

Amen and Amen.

Remember, Iran wants a shot at the title of "Last Superpower Standing!" and it seems the IAEA may be helping them.

Also reporting:

Hyscience
Freedom's Zone

Linked with :
Stop the ACLU open trackbacks
123Beta opem trackbacks

Comments

[Debbie]

No problem Butch. I feel your pain because TypePad always has problems with trackbacks. No problem.

[Debbie]

Dale, thanks for your comment. The title of this post asks a question, not makes a statement of fact. Chad is basing some of his informatio on his 'source' which has connections to the IAEA. Chads original post was based on an article in Die-Welt, a German weekly publication which can now be found on-line here http://www.welt.de/

Chad did not link to the specific article he referred to, but you can go there, do a search, do a Google translation, and read the three articles they have presently listed. Or I have done that for you and you can read them here:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.welt.de%2Fz%2Fsearch%2Findex.php%2Fwelt_advanced_search%3Fcount%3D10%26action%3Dwelt_advanced_search%26q%3DChris%2BCharlier%26ds%3Ddate%26search.x%3D9%26search.y%3D7&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

[Butch]

Debbie,

Haloscan, wizbang and other tb tools are all acting goofy tonight.

I'll post your tb as soon as I get a ping. Geez...

Good post BTW...

[Dale]

I looked at the articles but I saw no evidence put forth that the IAEA has been corrupted by anyone. Mr. Charlier merely says he "thinks" and he "believes". There was more evidence of WMD's in Iraq than of Charlier's allegations. If Charlier knows of any evidence he should tell us what it is. Otherwise he is like Chicken Little. Put up or shut up,sir.
(Unless this is one of those double supersecret things that he cannot talk about because he gave his word.)
Or is this one of those "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" things again?
We once called people like Charlier "disgruntled ex-employees". Why not now? I "think" and I "believe" the shoe fits.
El Baradei was right about Iraq's weapons and the rest of the world knows it. He will likely be right on Iran, too, whatever he says.