Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 08, 2012

NYT: The IAEA Is A U.S. Agency

It seems that the homepage editor of the New York Times made a Freudian slip here:

Cut from a screenshot of the current NYT Global homepage

The link for the "U.S. Agency ..." headline goes to a piece headlined Nuclear Agency Resumes Talks With Iran Over Access to Sites:

LONDON — Senior inspectors from the United Nations nuclear watchdog renewed talks with Iran on Friday aimed at securing access to restricted sites where the agency believes scientists may have tested explosives that could be used as triggers for nuclear warheads, officials at the agency said.

The discussions at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna ...

To name the IAEA an U.S. agency, when it is supposed to be an independent technical agency associated with the United Nations, is not completely wrong. As we know from Wikileaks cables the head of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, is a total U.S.puppet:

Amano reminded [the] ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77 [the developing countries group], which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.

The homepage editor's slip was probably induced by that and as such simply documented the truth about the IAEA in its current form.

The whole nuclear weapon issue with Iran is of course not about anything nuclear as Iran has no nuclear weapons program. It is about continued U.S. hegemony over the Middle East which requires regime change in Iran. The recent negotiation offer to Iran was not serious and now the P3+3 talks are again getting stalled by the U.S./EU side. The Obama administration does not want to find a solution with Iran. For now it wants to push the issue off until the U.S. election is over. If the economy allows the U.S. then may again push for war in the following year.

Posted by b on June 8, 2012 at 11:37 UTC | Permalink


The real question in my opinion is how do you make the IAEA neutral?
Or more exactly should it be neutral?

why not devide the IAEA into its member countries then the representatives of the US can say that "they found weapons-grade enriched sewage piping in every house in Iran" while Japan can claim that "there was no radiation leak during the Fukushima disaster..."

At least then it would not have to deliver a combined report... (filed with more false conclusions than right ones....)

Posted by: Simon Holtz | Jun 8 2012 12:28 utc | 1

Wasn't el-Baradei neutral at one point in time? The US haven't forgotten about it.

Posted by: www | Jun 8 2012 13:32 utc | 2

El Baradei was immeasurably better, at least he had a lot of respect from all over the world. (I posted before about how he was elected. Mubarak tried to keep him out. Much later, El Baradei became a sorta-candidate for the Egyptian Presidency, as known.)

Not to mention Hans Blix, the previous Dir.

The slip of the pen reflects reality. It is like the masks have come off, the need or desire for functioning Int’l orgs that accomplish a little something or at least keep lids on boiling pots, provide some stay / time blocking immediate trigger actions, offer some clumsy forum for diplomacy and discussion, leaves a little space for dissenting voices, etc. is no longer considered to be worthwhile or of any use at all.

Much the same applies to Kofi Annan > Ban Ki Moon.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 8 2012 16:31 utc | 3


nothing Freudian about this :) it is a statement of fact :)

Posted by: Osama | Jun 9 2012 12:22 utc | 4

The comments to this entry are closed.