Yesterday the International Atomic Energy Agency released a report that warned that it has evidence that Iran may be working on a nuclear warhead. This is the first time the IAEA has suggested that Tehran had either resumed such work or in fact had never stopped, as U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded in a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. The draft report (pdf) cited undisclosed evidence that “raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”
The report also noted that Iran had stonewalled IAEA efforts to discuss issues related to nuclear weapons work since August 2008 and confirmed that Iran had enriched uranium to a level of 19.8 percent, which is a major step toward producing weapons-grade uranium, despite repeated U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that they stop these and other nuclear activities.
The new report, which included the U.N. agency’s strongest language to date concerning Iran’s suspicious nuclear activities, was the first prepared under the leadership of new IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano. Amino last year replaced former IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who repeatedly undermined western efforts to pressure Iran to halt its nuclear program and earned a reputation as the “nuclear watchdog that didn’t bark.”
The Obama Administration urged Iran to publicly address issues highlighted in the report. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley complained that “We cannot explain why it refuses to come to the table and engage constructively to answer questions that have been raised.”
One senior administration official who briefed reporters on the report underscored that the findings showed that Iran’s “pattern of behavior is one that is very disturbing.” Another anonymous senior official told The New York Times that Iran’s actions described in the report “almost suggest the Iranian military is inviting a confrontation.”
But Tehran may believe that such a confrontation is unlikely with the Obama Administration, which continues to cling to its failed engagement strategy. Earlier this week Vice President Joseph Biden went out of his way to downplay Iran’s nuclear threat. And on February 17, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Al-Arabiya television that “Obviously, we don’t want Iran to become a nuclear weapons power, but we are not planning anything other than going for sanctions.”
The new IAEA report provided fresh evidence contradicting the controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program that concluded that Iran had suspended weaponization activities in 2003. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican member on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, called for a review of the flawed 2007 NIE by outside experts:
When the IAEA, a United Nations body, is issuing reports that are more definitive than the US intelligence community, something is clearly wrong. The solution is to set up a “Red Team” of non-government experts to review US intelligence on an Iranian nuclear weapons program and issue an independent report. There is precedent for such an outside review which I believe would help improve and restore confidence in U.S. intelligence analysis.
For more on Iran, see: Iran Briefing Room
Yesterday, for the second time this year, Iran test-fired their Sejil-2 ballistic missile. The mid-range weapon has a range of about 1200 miles, long enough to target Israel, Egypt, southeastern Europe, and many American bases in the Middle East.
So if Iran has twice test-fired missiles this year that can hit targets stretching from Israel to Europe, then how can the Obama administration possibly justify reneging on agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic to host land based missile defense? The New York Times explains:
Earlier this month, administration officials cited what they called accumulating evidence that Iran had made more progress than anticipated in building short- and medium-range missiles that could threaten Israel and Europe than it had in developing the intercontinental missiles that the Bush system was more suited to counter.
So the Obama administration is claiming that since Iran has only developed medium-range missiles so far, the only protection our soldiers and allies in Europe need is from medium-range missiles. But why not protect them from both? Before President Obama’s reversal we were building systems to protect against medium and long-range threats. All the Obama administration did is cut our missile defenses in half. We are in a desperate race to beat the clock on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. Why on earth are we stopping now to let the Iranians catch up?