Article: Russia and China warn US that an Israeli attack on Iran means world war...

[CGM]

If you read the final few paragraphs on page A48 of the New York Times they eventually get round to saying "but yesterday the IAEA head urged caution over the claims made yesterday by [US neocon loonies in America or some Israeli nutjob politician who the main article is all about] and pointed out that the IAEA have all Iran's nuclear activities under constant monitoring and don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb."
...

ok my original remark was in reference to

...
Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media.
...

and i was intending to question whether you actually had access to verifiable facts that weren't being reported in the west.

The bolded remark in your last reply to me seems to support your original claim to a certain extent. The IAEA head doesn't actually come out and conclusively state that Iran isn't building a bomb as you seemed to do, but he comes reasonably close, so ok fine.

Let's put aside for the moment what Iran is actually telling people about what their intentions are. I am just a little skeptical that the IAEA can be so confident that there is nothing underhanded that is escaping their attention. Personally I believe

1. that if Iran had the ability to build a nuke, they would.
2. that if Iran had a way to do an end run around the IAEA monitoring they would do that too.
3. Israel has every reason to be nervous about this, regardless of whether or not I think they have a "right to exist".
3. there is no way way the IAEA can be absolutely certain they have everything under control. Ergo the remark: we "don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb." This is not quite consistent with their claim that they have everything under surveillance.

The IAEA head has said they're not building a bomb and he doesn't think they're even planning to.

The UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei has once again highlighted the lack of evidence to prove Iran is after a nuclear bomb.

Speaking at a session of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, ElBaradei reiterated the International Atomic Energy Agency has no evidence that Iran is seeking to develop an atomic bomb.

"We haven't seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and I've been saying that consistently for the last five years," ElBaradei asserted.

He said that the issue of Iran's nuclear standoff with the West is a problem of trust.

The IAEA boss referred to a December 3 joint assessment by 16 US spy agencies, which conceded that Tehran is not running a nuclear weapons program, and said that the US intelligence report agreed with his agency's assessment on Iran's nuclear program.

ElBaradei: Iran not after bomb

Now that's the first thing google found but I'm sure if you go to the IAEA website it's there somewhere or if you google the quote eventually some known media outlet somewhere will have reported it.

Iran have the ability to build a bomb but aren't. If they did they'd have an untested weapon with no delivery capability and no way of getting one while under sanctions. They have enough material for one bomb and it's under constant watch. The IAEA have a bunch of inspectors and cameras in Iran monitoring their entire operation constantly.

You say that IAEA says they aren't doing it, but then you quote the IAEA as saying not that they aren't doing it, just that they haven't seen indications or concrete evidence. There's a bit of a difference. As for the Mossad, well who knows what they've found out, I'n sure they wouldn't tell "us".'

Anyways "no evidence" means either they aren't doing it or they are doing a good job at covering their tracks. Sure there are issues of trust involved. I wouldn't trust a guy like Ahmadinejad any further than I could throw him. You are free to trust him if you want.

I do believe the IAEA though. So if they say they haven't found any concrete evidence, than so be it. We agree on that much. It means they haven't found any concrete evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.