Doubt cast on PM's
'nuclear threat' claim
Evidence inconclusive, say
sources
Richard
Norton-Taylor
Monday
September 9, 2002
The Guardian
The International Atomic Energy Agency has no evidence that Iraq is
developing nuclear weapons at a former site previously destroyed by
UN inspectors, despite claims made over the weekend by Tony Blair,
western diplomatic sources told the Guardian yesterday.
After his talks on Saturday with President Bush at Camp David, Mr
Blair referred to the "real" threat of Saddam Hussein's nuclear
programme. He said: "We only need to look at the report from the
International Atomic Energy Agency showing what has been going on at
the former nuclear weapons site to realise that."
The prime minister was speaking after the agency issued a statement
insisting it had "no new information" on Iraq's nuclear programme
since December 1998 when its inspectors left Iraq. Only through a
resumption of inspections in accordance with UN security council
resolutions "can the agency draw any conclusion", it said.
Sources said yesterday that claims made by Mr Blair and in the New
York Times were based on commercial satellite pictures bought by the
agency. The pictures showed a reconstructed building, a well-placed
source who asked not to be identified said yesterday.
But he added: "You cannot draw any conclusions. The satellites were
only looking at the top of a roof. You cannot tell without inspectors
on the ground."
The New York Times also reported that Iraq had tried to procure
special aluminium tubes US officials said were wanted as components
to enrich uranium.
Scott Ritter, former US marine and member of the UN inspectors team,
said yesterday Iraq was incapable of producing weapons of mass
destruction and should prove it by allowing in inspectors.
Speaking in Baghdad, he said Iraq's cooperation on inspections would
leave the US "standing alone in regards to war threats on Iraq and
this is the best way to prevent the war". He added: "The truth is
Iraq is not a threat to its neighbours and it is not acting in a
manner which threatens anyone outside its borders. Military action
against Iraq cannot be justified."
It also appears the Bush administration is itself unsure as to how
close President Saddam is to acquiring nuclear weapons. The US
secretary of state, Colin Powell, said in an interview on the BBC's
Breakfast with Frost: "You can debate whether it is one year, five
years, six years or nine years; the important point is that they are
still committed to pursuing that technology."
Britain's defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, will today spell out the
circumstances in which Britain will join an American-led attack on
Iraq.
A text of his planned speech to the Brandeis school of law,
University of Louisville, where he was once a visiting professor,
says: "Saddam Hussein has the opportunity now to eliminate his
weapons of mass destruction and a further ultimatum may be issued."
Mr Hoon adds: "Just like the international community's response to
the events of September 11, diplomacy should and must come first.
Military action, if needed, should follow diplomacy."
British defence sources say the idea is to mount a "psychological
squeeze" on the Iraqi regime. Pressure will be asserted
incrementally, they say, insisting it will "not be a repeat of the
Gulf war", with more emphasis this time on bombing by US and British
aircraft of Iraqi air defence sites.
The US is building up its forces in Kuwait and Qatar as well as
weapons at its bomber base on the British Indian ocean island of
Diego Garcia - a key facility for an American attack on Iraq.
US troops - possibly with British paratroopers and special forces -
would be ready to enter Iraq if it ignored an ultimatum and after a
spate of US air strikes, according to one plan being drawn up by US
military chiefs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,788469,00.html
