Wow the IAEA is really on the ball

Earlier when I wrote about the discovery that Syria was cleaning up the site I was put off by the nay sayers who argued

“This isn’t like a Road Runner cartoon where you call up Acme Reactors and they deliver a functioning reactor to your back yard. It takes years to build,” said Joseph Cirincione, director for nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress. “This is an extremely demanding technology, and I don’t think Syria has the technical, engineering or financial base to really support such a reactor.”

and

“The reason we have an IAEA and a safeguard system is that, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, it can be presented by a neutral body to the international community so that a collective response can be pursued,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “It seems to me highly risky and premature for another country to bomb such a facility.”

But waiting for the Syrians to realize that they ought not be building a reactor for plutonium or for the IAEA to act would gain the Israelis little. Better strike when there’s a less significant threat than when it’s close to realization. However, Meryl wasn’t as cynical and credited the reporters for a job well done. Quoting John Bolton questioning Syrian motives was effective too.

But John R. Bolton, the Bush administration’s former ambassador to the United Nations, said Syria’s secrecy — including its apparent move to clean up the site after the bombing — suggests that Damascus is pursuing a strategy similar to that of Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Bolton said Iran once attempted to conceal nuclear activity from IAEA inspectors by bulldozing nuclear-related buildings and even digging up nearby topsoil to remove all traces of nuclear material. “The common practice for people with legitimate civilian nuclear power programs is to be transparent, because they have nothing to hide,” Bolton said.

Most significantly the reporter noted at the beginning

Syria has begun dismantling the remains of a site Israel bombed Sept. 6 in what may be an attempt to prevent the location from coming under international scrutiny, said U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the aftermath of the attack. Based on overhead photography, the officials say the site in Syria’s eastern desert near the Euphrates River had a “signature” or characteristics of a small but substantial nuclear reactor, one similar in structure to North Korea’s facilities.

These apparently weren’t only American officials who recognized the “signature” of the structure. So it seems that regardless of how far along the Syrians were (about which there’s disagreement) there was a consensus about the nature of the structure. Late in the article there’s this significant bit of information:

The IAEA has not been provided any evidence about the Syrian facility and has been unable to obtain any reliable details about the Sept. 6 strike, said a European diplomat familiar with the agency’s internal discussions.

So according to the Washington Post there’s an American consensus based on photographic evidence that the facility Israel destroyed was nuclear and the IAEA didn’t have any further informatin. So it’s *not* surprising that before the day is out, the IAEA reveals that it does have pictures and, at first glance, they don’t show a nuclear facility. The AP reported

U.N. experts have obtained satellite imagery of the site struck last month by Israeli warplanes and are analyzing it for signs that it might have been a secret nuclear facility, diplomats said Friday. One of the diplomats, who is linked to the International Atomic Energy Agency — the U.N. nuclear watchdog looking at the images — said IAEA experts were looking at commercial images, disputing earlier suggestions that they had come from U.S. intelligence. Separately, two diplomats said the images, acquired Thursday, did not at first examination appear to substantiate reports that the target was a nuclear installation, but emphasized that the photos were still under examination. All of those who spoke to The Associated Press were briefed on the agency’s receipt of the images but demanded anonymity because their information was confidential. Officials of the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog and the U.S. diplomatic mission to the IAEA had no comment.

So just when the Washington Post reports that the IAEA doesn’t know anything more about the Syrian site, the IAEA leaks information, and, surprise! its experts say that there’s nothing nuclear about the site. Then in case anyone didn’t get that, instead of a news story, this was an IAEA press release, AP includes this:

The investigation by the IAEA is crucial because it is the first instance of an independent and respected organization looking at the evidence and trying to reach a conclusion as to what was hit.

As HotAir responds

I guess that depends on what you mean by “independent” and “respected.” I don’t find the IAEA to be either one.

The AP report seems awfully convenient from the standpoint of the IAEA. It’s geared toward staving off embarrassment and feigning relevance. Until there’s something more substantial from IAEA, I’ll assume that it is trying to bolster its image regardless of the truth.

The Raw Story (h/t the Hashmonean) dismisses the American allegations as fabrications of Dick Cheney. Clearly the Raw Story has an ax to grind here, and I don’t find its treatment especially convincing.

UPDATE: added the word *not* above.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.