ElBaradei Silence Puts Credibility on Charlier's Side
With regards to the report that IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei fired the IAEA's lead inspector, Chris Charlier, at Iranian request in April, please allow for a few additional observations.
The earlier InBrief entry on the issue in part concludes:
The same UN officials acknowledged and confirmed to the Washington Post that Chris Charlier had not been back to Iran since April “because of Iranian displeasure with his work,” confirming also that it was, by timing, the April visit to Tehran that initiated the move. All that remains at issue is whether Charlier still has access to the IAEA’s Iranian nuclear dossier. In the Die Welt story, it is reported that he has none and is, in essence, “counting paper clips in Vienna till he eventually retires.”
Regardless of whether or not Charlier has access to the IAEA’s Iranian nuclear dossier, ElBaradei and Tehran have clearly blocked the lead inspector’s access Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Consider that ElBaradei and IAEA spokesmen may soon claim that it is simply Tehran that has cut Charlier’s access since April. But if this were so, why has neither ElBaradei nor any IAEA spokesmen condemned such a move or released any statement even acknowledging such Iranian defiance? Perhaps there is more truth to the Die Welt story than the IAEA and ElBaradei would like to acknowledge.
Consider also that the IAEA is already powerless to enforce a single measure, reliant solely upon the United Nations Security Council for action. That same Security Council is populated by two veto-wielding members (China and Russia) who currently oppose any form of even the first level of enforcement: Sanctions. That the IAEA further renders itself moot by allowing the inspected to dictate the staff of inspectors is palpable.
Concerning denials by 'unnamed UN officials, what possible motivation would a lead IAEA inspector have for claiming he had been cut off from Iran by Tehran and cut off from documents by his direct supervisor, Mohamed ElBaradei, if he had not experienced precisely that?
Within the context of ElBaradei's silence to-date on the Iranian demand that Charlier be fired, credibility tends to tip towards Charlier's account.
Ask yourself: What if Iraq had made this demand of the UN with regard to Hans Blix?
How long would it take for a public condemnation of the inspected dictating the inspectors?