Robert Mayer (Publius Pundit) writes of the IAEA’s Mohammed El Baradei’s sudden display of cojones regarding the mullahs in Newsweek:
I’m feeling mixed emotions here. I don’t know whether to be happy or sad. Happy that the world’s foremost pacifist has reached a realization, or sad that it had to get this far before it happened.
I respectfully disagree. (Publius is one of my favorite in many ways.) Given El Baradei’s “credentials,” this a huge and important signal not just to Iran (doubt they’ll listen to anything anyway) but to various dithering factions in Europe, even to the Russians and Chinese. The IAEA leader has developed clout through this pacifism – whatever you want to call it. (via Instapundit)
Roger, with all due respect I think that both you and Publius missed the major statement in ElBaradai’s interview. The head of the IAEA said on the record that, “if they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponization program along the way, they are really not very far – a few months – from a weapon.” That’s huge. When the IAEA report comes out, it’s going to be really damning of the regime.
ajveros — I read that, and though I don’t doubt the possibility of its truth, the last time El-Baradei was quoted as saying that it was a misquote in which he actually said a couple years.
So I guess this goes back to my original comment, now addressing Roger. If indeed Iran is just months away from a nuke, why did it take so long for El-Baradei and the other professional talkers to finally start talking about the mere possibility about enforcement through force? I think that’s something to be sad about. Looking through the totality of our history, we in the West have a suicidal tendency of self-doubt in situations where danger is blatantly imminent. Can we really afford to always wait until the last critical moment, when our entire civilization rests in the balance?