The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency singled out Iran on Monday as a “special case” for his monitoring teams because of suspicions it might be hiding experimental nuclear weapons programs. He also faulted both Iran and Syria – also suspected of hiding nuclear activities that could be used to make weapons – for holding back on cooperation with his agency, the UN nuclear monitor. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano's opening comments Monday at the start of the agency's 35-nation board meeting set the focus for much of the gathering, with both Iran and Syria key agenda items. Iran is stonewalling IAEA attempts to follow up on intelligence from the US and other nations that suggests Tehran has hidden nuclear weapons experiments from the world. A fourth set of UN Security Council sanctions may be passed in the next few days to punish its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment, which Iran says it wants to develop as a nuclear fuel source, but which can also be used to make nuclear warheads. “Iran is a special case because, among other things, of the existence of issues related to the possible military dimensions to its nuclear program,” Amano told the closed meetings in comments made available to reporters. “Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.” As for Syria, it “has not cooperated with the agency since June 2008 in connection with the unresolved issues related to the Dair Alzour site and some other locations,” he said, referring to the facility targeted by the Israelis. “As a consequence, the agency has not been able to make progress towards resolving the outstanding issues related to those sites.” The two nations have for years taken up prime time at IAEA board meetings. But that attention may be blunted at this meeting by an other agenda item - this one critical of Israel, which is universally assumed to have nuclear arms but has never confirmed that status. The item, listed as “Israeli nuclear capabilities,” marks the first time in 19 years that the board has been asked to formally discuss the issue.
