Because all they have to say is doubletalk and enabling.

Here is an example....
Dr. ElBaradei said he hoped that conditions could soon be created to make it possible for negotiations between Iran and all relevant parties.
He repeated his call for a "double time-out" of all enrichment-related activities and of sanctions, to provide a breathing space for negotiations to be resumed.
"The earlier we move from confrontation and distrust, to dialogue and confidence-building, the better for Iran and for the international community," the Director General said.

'Soon be created to make it possible'? Yeah thats to the point. Ohg, I forgot to back it further back with 'hope'.

What does this mean, "double time-out"? Is this an Animal House reference? What a confidence builder!

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/bog121007.html

The muslims use Jihad and fatwa all the time. Why not use the word crusade?

It's the one prospect that will unite Islam. The crusades were not a shining moment of Christianity. Mostly barbaric slaughter of Muhammadens and Jews to reclaim the holy land, by people who believed this would buy their way to heaven by erasing past sins.

Buddahaid

Because civilian reactors need U235.

The IAEA is a UN organization, therefore all of its documents are written in Diplospeak.

What El Baradei is saying is that he wants a cooling off period, where Iran stops enriching uranium and the West stops sanctions. He's being pushed hard from both sides. On one hand Iran hasn't signed the Additional Protocol, so he doesn't have as much access as he'd like. On the other hand, the West (not just the US) is pushing him hard to make it look like Iran is building nuclear weapons.

The IAEA reports are good for the technical information. All of that points to Iran not having a nuclear weapons program.

Something tells me, Iran is going to have a very bad day in the near future.

-S

Why would a country with the third largest oil reserves need nuclear power? And if they have gone green why dosesn't the US utilize the same nuclear facility?

And of very little value unless you are a petty despot or left leaning individual.

Good point! Domestically, the US population is still scared of nuclear power and there is the waste to deal with. I'm for it overall as the past problems of co-lateral environmental problems can be overcome now.

Buddahaid

Personally, I'm so confident in the technology you can build it in my back yard. But the stimulus package, which we were in dire need of stopped the funding of the Yucca MTN Repository, essentially destroying Nuclear Pwr Generation.

No oil drilling,
No coal mining,
No nuclear power. Where is the horse and buggy?

I love the left:nope:

The Iranian oil industry is a mess. It's in such bad shape that it's actually cheaper for them to go nuclear than it is to upgrade their oil infrastructure. Some studies say that they'll run out of exploitable oil as soon as 2014.

Also, even if their oil industry was in perfect shape, having an alternate energy supply would free up more oil for export.

As far as why the US doesn't use nuclear, the answer is NIMBYs and paranoia.

Regarding your comment about the IAEA, it's probably the most important pillar of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Without the IAEA any reasonably advanced country who wants nukes would have them. It has its faults for sure, but it has always been a very competent and professional organization.

Great, let tthe attack begin!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7XN...eature=related

This is more like it if Iran isn't stopped now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kLOXZ3-7VM

Which begs the question...how many Iranians are you willing to sacrifice for talk?

Skybird, there is no way the US could invade Iran prior to them testing a nuclear device, simply because the public would never go with it after what Bush said about the WMD in Iraq. A war with Iran would be devastating, and no I'm not pushing forward a halfhearted attack should that be necessary but a full on attack - anything else would just be a fools game. Are you saying we should just bomb them now and be done with it? It just wouldn't wash and instead of doing the right thing the Iranians would claim to be the victim and make the rest of the world look like the evil westerners in a crusade against Islam or some other bollocks. There is no easy answer to Iran at the moment, but we can't just go around bombing countries who do something we don't like. It seemed that one moment you criticise the attacks against Iraq and Afghanistan but to me it seems thats precisely what your suggesting we do to Iran, in which case whats different? And how can you justify that without completely destroying the policital status of the West? We have to pick our moment carefully with Iran, just bombing them suddenly will do nothing but harm our objectives. Its shown in war that it just becomes a bloody mess and the true political message is lost between the body counts and the protests I.E Vietnam.

If an attack was to be carried out it should only be given the go ahead if an extremely high level of accuracy and destruction of the vital components can be assured.

Otherwise I fear the voice of opinion and condemnation would quickly sway in favour of Iran leading to a series of further strikes from the west and possibly even a retaliatory strike from Iran or even NK. CAN WE BE CERTAIN THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY. CAN WE AFFORD TO TAKE THE CHANCE.