So one day Yukiya Amano, the new head of the International Atomic Energy Organization, states plainly that he has not seen any evidence that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and the very next day Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the US Chief of Staff declares that time is running out on trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes and Biden gives Israel the green light to bomb Iran (yes I know Obama later denied giving Israel a green light -- but that's just CYA and "plausible deniability" at work.)
The incoming head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday he did not see any hard evidence Iran was trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms.
"I don't see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this," Yukiya Amano told Reuters in his first direct comment on Iran's atomic program since his election, when asked whether he believed Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons capability."
The top U.S. military officer warned on Tuesday that time is running out for dialogue with Tehran to avoid either a nuclear-armed Iran or a possible military strike against the Islamic Republic.
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it is critical for diplomatic efforts to reach a solution before Iran develops a nuclear weapon or faces an Israeli or U.S. strike to turn back its nuclear program.
Incidentally, note how Mullen frames this as a false choice: the only choices are to prevent Iran's nuclear program from progressing (whether by sanctions, "dialogue" or Israeli attack) or else Iran will obtain nuclear weapons. I have written about this way misframing the issue previously:
Basically, in presenting the matter as "either prevent Iran's enrichment or else Iran will obtain nuclear weapons", they're conveniently limiting the range of choices and leaving out a significant option: accepting Iran's compromise proposals that would address any real concern that Iran's nuclear program could be used to make bombs.
But I suppose the real irony is how Biden claims that Israel has a "sovereign right" to attack Iran, whereas Iran supposedly doesn't have a sovereign right to have its own civilian, IAEA-monitored nuclear program. Since when? In fact, using force to resolve disputes is contrary to the UN Charter and constitutes a crime under international law. Israel has no such "sovereign right" and automatically labelling Israeli aggression as "pre-emptive" doesn't give it such a right either. In fact, such an attack would not meet the definition of "pre-emptive" since Israel faces no threat of attack from Iran which is instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation. Rather, at best such an attack could be described as preventive -- and therefore illegal.
Addendum: Meanwhile, pro-Israeli lobbyists are pressing for a US-Iran confrontation.