The ultimatum

From comedy to the theatre of the absurd, the UN and its blotted, pompous and ineffectual agencies continue to abuse and amuse:

I. When Israel bombed the site marked for Syrian aspirations to possess nukes,

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei.. chastised Israel... in a statement whose strong language reflected his anger at being kept out of the picture for so long.

..."The director general deplores the fact that this information was not provided to the agency in a timely manner, in accordance with the agency's responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to enable it to verify its veracity and establish the facts," the statement said. (Source)

Seeing as how totally ineffective ElBaradei has been, is and will be, in curbing anybody's aspiratins to possess nukes, somehow at his most incompetent when those as yet undeveloped nukes are ear marked, a-priori, to be aimed at Israel, his protestations take on a particularly ridiculous hue.

II. Now that "Less than a day after The New York Times reported that the IAF carried out a major military drill in the first week of June, an apparent rehearsal for a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, Mohammed ElBaradei ... warned that he will quit in the event of a military strike on Iran. "

A military offensive against Iran will turn the region into a fireball he was quoted as saying. “I don’t believe that what I see in Iran today is a current grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time, it would make me unable to continue my work.”

That's quite an ultimatum. Seeing as the agency under his command failed to stop India and Pakistan from acquiring nukes, failed to provide a slam-dunk proof to the UN that Saddam Hussein no longer had nuclear capabilities in development (this failure leading to a war), failed to even tickle the Iranians' feet with his incompetent search for their nuke development sites, his ultimatum to quit over somebody else doing the job thoroughly and capably sounds like sour grapes, to me.

To me, a thorough ignoramus on nukes and such, it seems that Elbaradei's position is clear: Don't interfere too rigorously with the status-quo ( "Muhammad Al-Baradei: If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons... it would need at least... Considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has... It would need at least six months to one year. Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon".) Let the Iranians continue as they do now, unperturbed and undisturbed, and by all means stop Israel from taking care of its country and people. For if Israel were to clean out Iran's network of nuclear sites, ElBaradei may find himself out of work, or yet again, confronted by his own global and dangerous incompetence.

>>>>

And in the meantime, there is this information:

The website of the French news agency Le Monde reported that information originating in different countries other than the US and suggesting that Syria did indeed build a nuclear reactor in Al Kibar, was handed over to the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) recently.

This report contradicts the most recent statement made by the UN's nuclear watchdog, in which it denied having any knowledge leading to the conclusion that Syria had the knowledge and means to build such a reactor.

According to the French report, the new information confirms earlier claims that North Korea had assisted Syria in its nuclear endeavors. This negates a speech made on Tuesday by IAEA Director General Mohammad ElBaradei, who said in an interview to Al Arabiya television that "we have no evidence that Syria has the human resources that would allow it to carry out a large nuclear program. We do not see Syria having nuclear fuel."

This is a strange contradiction: How come ElBaradei, speaking for the IAEA, states no knowledge while sources within his own organization stipulate differently?