Take for example..Muhammad elBaradei's recent remarks on..(military action against Iran). Speaking to Le Monde on Monday (22 Oct), elBaradei asserted that it will take Iran between 3 to 8 years to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Consequently, he argued, there is no reason to consider conducting a military strike against Teheran's program. There is still plenty of time for diplomacy, or sanctions or even incentives for the ayatollahs, he said. ElBaradei's statement is only interesting when it is compared to a statement he made in December 2005 to the Independent. Back then Baradei's view was that Iran was just "a few months" away from producing atomic bombs. But then too he saw no reason to attack. As he put it when he warned that Iran was on the precipice of nuclear weapons, using force would just "open Pandora's box." "There would be efforts to isolate Iran; Iran would retaliate, and at the end of the day, you have to go back to the negotiation table to find the solution," he warned. Given that the IAEA's Egyptian chief has been unstinting in his view that no obstacle should be placed in Iran's path to nuclear bombs, what makes his statements from 2005 and today interesting is what they tell us about his changing perception of the West's intentions. At the end of 2005, he was fairly certain that the West - led by the US - lacked the will to attack Iran. By making the statement he made at the time, he sought to demoralize the West and so convince it that there was nothing to be done to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Now, when faced with a real possibility that the US or Israel or a combination of states are ready and willing to attack Iran's nuclear installations, elBaradei seeks to undermine them by questioning the salience of the threat. Above are excerpts from Caroline Glick's excellent commentary at jpost. Also recall ElBaradei's claim in Dec 07 that Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities had slowed down. ahmadinejad's reply that there has been no change in Iran’s nuclear policy proves that ElBaradei lied .

that a " Mohamed EL BARADEI" an Egyptian would think it's just peachy keen for Arabs to have nuclear weapons?

the arabs are oh so good and oh so reliable... aren't they? look what the arabs have done for this world in the last 60 years... kept millions of their brethren in so-called 'refugge camps... started, stoked, fomented and financed the horrific carnages in Africa... kept up the genocidic war against Israel... and held the world ransom for their oil supplies... not to mention the jaunty little exercises against Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and you name it... good ole arabs... a cup of coffee anyone can get to like.

Now he is showing his horrible and covered face with more clarity.It needs to focus and think more and more about him.He is trying to take the U.S.A, and Israel into asleep, and provide the conspirators with the best facilities.He doesn't know what is his position, and as it shows , doesn't care about that too.Perhaps they are considering themselves stronger, and feel it is not needed to keep continue the cover any longer.He is not allowed to talk about a TERM like ARAB WORLD.In the consideration by International Law it doesn't make sense ,and of course he should be on the legal path.He must talk about the countries with their Law integrity and specified.I won't be astonished if tomorrow ElBaradei going to Durban-South Africa and appeal against the U.S.A and Israel.Wait and see who are going to applause him.Finding the Judas getting easier.

Since the big concern is that light water reactors uses uranium 235 as a fuel, enriched to approximately 3 percent (1) - which can be enriched more to weapons grade then only allow heavy water reactors. Proponents of heavy water reactors suggest that because such reactors can be fueled with unenriched uranium there is less risk of nuclear proliferation; an ideal product to be marketed to nations that have no legitimate use for uranium enrichment facilities. (2) then just collect the plutonium it makes as a bi-product (easy to calculate how much would be produced for verification). 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water_reactor

This disgusting little man has lied time and again..............does he take us all for fools? W hy is a Muslim named Mohammad in charge of nuclear inspections? Who gave him this very important job. Its clearly obvious he is on the ayatollahs pay books so why has he still retained this decisive position? Questions need to be answered.

It sounds really odd that an arab says that there were no problems inthe arab world with nuclear power....did anybody hear about dirty-bombs? would you think that hammas or any jew-hater wouldn't use dirty bombs with radioactivity components???? or I have just became paranoid........

I have no issue with Arab countries trying to build peaceful Nuclear Programs for power generation. If an Arab Country wants to start a Nuke Program, that country should be investigated, and if all checks out, let them go at it. I do have a problem with Iran having a Nuke program. Why, you may ask? Its quite simple. 1) For many years Iran lied, and said they had no Nuke Program. 2) Iran's President, on multiple occasions, called for the destruction of Israel 3) Iran's President denies the Holocaust happened, or to the extent that it happened. 4)Iran for many years refused to let IAEA inspectors in to examine the Nuke Facilities 5) Iran has now let the IAEA in, but there is still a vast portion of the Iranian Nuke program that remains in the dark 6) Iran is the #1 State Sponsor of Terrorism in the World. Iran might now ever attack Israel with Nuclear Weapons, but I would not be surprised if Iran didn't give a Nuke to a Terrorist Organization that would use such a weapon 7) One minute, Iran is a few months away from Nuke capability, the next they are years. There seems to be a lot of speculation, with no hard evidence to back up the claims If Jordan wanted to start a Nuke Program, let them do it. They have been peaceful with their neighbors, do not incite violence around the region, and do not threaten the neighboring countries.