IAEA: Uranium allegations against Iraq "unfounded"

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Everyone knows my bias in this issue; naturally, i will be posting excerpts from the IAEA’s report (released today) that favour my own position. Others are welcome to quote the excerpts from Mohamed el Baradei’s report that they view most favourably. As long as no one argues, please, feel free to state whatever you want.

First, we will be going back to 24 September 2002, when PM Tony Blair released this report, “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction - The assessment of the British Government”. One statement on page 25 states, “there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa”.

Three months later on 19 December 2002, the US State Department responded to a report from the government of Iraq; the US report is titled, “Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council”. As one of its “illustrative examples”, it accues Iraq of “efforts to procure uranium from Niger”.

Fast track to today’s issuing of the IAEA report - selected excerpts regarding the US and UK accusation of Iraq’s attaining of uranium weapons:

"The IAEA has discussed these reports with the Governments of Iraq and Niger, both of which have denied that any such activity took place. For its part, Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive explanation of its relations with Niger, and has described a visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries, including Niger, in February 1999, which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports. The IAEA was also able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the Government of Niger, and to compare the form, format, contents and signatures of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation.

“Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.”

“There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.”

El Baradei’s conclusions:
"After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no
evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons
programme in Iraq.

There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings
that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being
reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of
nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question."

~ ~ ~
Why do the governments of the US and UK engage in a habit of consistently providing documents that subsequently always seem to fail the cardinal test of validity? Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives hinge upon these documents’ accuracy. If you have concrete proof of your allegations, supply it and be willing to stand by your proof if the need arises on a later date. In the absence of tangible evidence, it begins to resemble nothing better than a silly charade.

2

Why? Why?

Please read the following article by one of Saddam’s former bombmakers. Read how he describes the ruthlessness of Saddam’s regimes and how throughly he had hoodwinked the IAEA and UNSCOM before.

When I hear from dozens of Nuclear Scientists, OUTSIDE of Iraq that there is no Nuclear program I will believe it. Why have no scientists been interviewed outside of Iraq? If they are truely disarmed, why would this be a problem?

Most of the information about Saddam’s WMD have come from defectors, not from inspectors.

Asleep at the switch

By any estimate, Al-Tuwaitha must have housed thousands of technical people. Yet for two decades, only a handful of scientific articles were published by those working at this huge complex. We worried about how this would look to the IAEA or to foreign intelligence organizations. But to our relief, no one ever raised questions about the lack of publications by Al-Tuwaitha’s scientists.

The research center was carrying out Saddam’s original orders, and it permitted only a few publications. Jaafar, for example, had 32 publications listed on his resume when he returned to Iraq in 1974, most of which he wrote during a four-year period in the early 1970s when he worked at cern, the European accelerator center in Switzerland. From the time he returned to Iraq in 1974 through the Gulf War in 1991, he published only two or three additional articles.

Despite the size of the Iraqi program, it had only a dozen or so scientists and engineers who were in a position to plan and implement nuclear projects. Without these key people, the nuclear program could not have existed. Before the Gulf War, the IAEA had no idea who they were or what they did, nor did Western intelligence agencies seem to have much interest. More than 400 Iraqis were trained in France and Italy during the late 1970s, yet none of them reported being approached about what they were doing. Nearly all the current leaders of the program were drawn from those trainees.

Most surprising to the Iraqi scientists after the Gulf War was how little was known about them, especially among UNSCOM and IAEA Action Team personnel who were supposed to uncover the nuclear program.

Iraqi scientists found it unbelievable that IAEA member states did not share critical intelligence about Iraq before the Gulf War. Iraq’s scientific attaché at IAEA headquarters in Vienna regularly sent back all published IAEA reports concerning Iraq’s nuclear activities, including video clips. In 1989, an article in Der Spiegel detailed the participation of German nationals in Iraq’s centrifuge program. Still the IAEA voiced no concern about a possible secret enrichment program.

The only explanation my colleagues and I could imagine was that the major powers did not think the IAEA could be trusted with intelligence information because of its reputation for leaks. But more important, the agency’s safeguards division showed little willingness to follow up on leads, even if it obtained provocative information. This situation has improved markedly since the embarrassment of uncovering Iraq’s clandestine program. The new safeguards system that has grown out of the “93+2 program,” set up in 1993 to overcome past failings, is capable of detecting future Iraqs. But if the old IAEA safeguards culture prevails, the new system will not be a match for a determined and untiring Saddam or other proliferators.
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1998/so98/so98hamza.html

3

Whats important is that the IAEA Experts have found that Iraq has currently NO Nuclear Weapons Program.

Inspector Finds No Nuclear Evidence](http://www.abc22.com/news/index.php?story=2574) ABC 22 News

By Associated Press

2:46 pm EST March 07, 2003 – The U-N’s top nuclear expert says there’s “no evidence or plausible indication” Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency says some aluminum tubes Iraq tried to import were not part of an effort to refine uranium. In a report to the Security Council today, ElBaradei said there’s no sign the tubes were intended “for any project other than” building rockets.

He also says reports that Iraq tried to get uranium from Niger are “not authentic.” ElBaradei says “Iraq has been forthcoming in its cooperation” over the last three weeks. He says that could be due to growing international pressure

4

Well of course defectors now living comfortable lives in the west, and saying exactly what their hosts want them to say. :rolleyes:

Imagine if during the cold war, the world had chosen to ignore legal international authorities like the UN and relied on defectors from the US to the Eastern bloc for information about the US?

5

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *

Most of the information about Saddam's WMD have come from defectors, not from inspectors.

[/QUOTE]

How very nice!!! Give me couple million and I will tell you democratic republic of congo has nuclear weapons.. LOLz... Now its upto you to find...

6

You guys are laughable.

Please answer me this. If there is nothing to hide, why have there been no scientists interviewed outside of Iraq? If I heard from two dozen Iraqi scientists, outside of Iraq, with their families outside of Iraq, that there was no WMD, then I would believe it. No bribery, no millions of dollars, just the truth in a non-restricive envionment.

This is what was envisioned in 1441. So who do you believe, defectors living in free lands, or scientists who are so intimidated in a totalitarian regime that their families will be slaughtered?

So answer me this. If Iraq has no WMD, why are there minders and tape recorders, and why have there been no interviews outside of the country?

I hereby nominate the 101st Airborne as the new inspectors.

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
You guys are laughable.

Please answer me this. If there is nothing to hide, why have there been no scientists interviewed outside of Iraq? .
[/QUOTE]

First of all its none ya business as to where those scientest chose to give interview. (Not that its any ones business to go in a soverign state and F... about) and second the scientest were offered a nice comfortable place in US and guess what.. They all said FO..... I strongly suggest amerikans get out of the well they live in...

Let me give you the gist... The problem is not in that part of the world BUT this... You play with fire and chances are you will get burned.

I hearby nominate the model of little kim to defeat the biggest terrorist.

8

You guys are laughable.
And gals, don’t forget.

What is more laughable, IMHO, is that the information from these defectors is considered more valid, and easily digested, over the information from the International Atomic Energy Agency. We have to make a choice - either you believe that all countries (including Iraq) should comply with the IAEA because the IAEA is an international organization whose regulations apply to all, OR, we believe that the IAEA is a defunct org. (whose information is faulty) and therefore Iraq should not comply with the IAEA. You can’t demand Iraq comply with the IAEA, but then dismiss the latter’s reports when they run against what we want to be true. It just doesn’t make sense. It’s like that saying - you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Malik73 made a very good point regarding defectors - OhioGuy, with all due respect to yourself, you might want to rely a little less on these defectors… Here’s an article that sheds some light regarding these not-so-reliable defectors:

…America’s Defence Intelligence Agency has a new ‘star’ defector - al-Haidari, a civil engineer who escaped from Iraq last year and has told his handlers he was asked to build secure dust-free ‘clean rooms’ in the laboratories for Iraq’s new weapons programme. After fleeing Iraq last December, al-Haidari claimed 300 secret weapons facilities had been ‘reactivated’ since the withdrawal of UN inspectors.

…even if al-Haidari’s claims turn out to be true, he is still a problematic figure, having made clear what he hopes to gain out of his revelations. Journalists with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, who interviewed him in Bangkok in December before he was spirited away by US intelligence officers, have said he told them he believed his account would help him secure a visa to join family members in Australia. (Source: Spooks dig for secrets of Saddam)

If there is nothing to hide, why have there been no scientists interviewed outside of Iraq?
Don’t quote me on this, but i remember reading somewhere that the government of Iraq had agreed to allow scientists to be interviewed outside of Iraq. i do not have the reference with me at the moment; IF i find it, then i will post it.

9

Nadia,

The Gals are not laughable! :)

The article that I posted is dead accurate. Until 1995 Unscom knew NOTHING about the Iraqi efforts in nuclear weapons development. The Iraqis LIED in their "Full and Complete" disclosure, which revealed nothing. IAEA knew nothing about these things, a huge embarrassment. Just before the defection in 1995 the IAEA was ready to give Iraq a clean bill of health on their nuclear programs. Guess who was incharge of the IAEA? Hans Blix! Go ahead, research it.

Undoubtedly there are defectors who will lie to get ahead. but their stories can be verified.

What I am talking about is not defectors. It is Iraqi scientists, en masse, in a safe and neutral territory, supervised and interviewed by the UN, not the US. Why has this not happened? The ONLY possible reason is that they might talk, and that Iraq has something to hide. This crap about a sovereign nation was not used when South Africa disarmed.

We all knew that Iraqi scientists would not talk in Iraq, that is precisely WHY the provision for taking them out of the country was written into 1441. If Saddam told them to speak freely, and that they and their families could leave the country, THEN I would belive that the inspections had a chance.

Perhaps the last decade has been forgotten. Inspectors being, blocked, physically threatened, locked out, spied upon. It is not suprising to me that given four years to prepare for inspections that nothing is found.

More information about Iraq's WMD has been discovered from defectors, than from herds of inspectors, and score of satellites.

I'll tell you this. If some US soldier is killed by a chemical weapon that was never supposed to be there, I will vote for dragging Chirac and Schroeder into the middle of the battlefield, and ask them to breathe deeply.

10

OG,

It’s alright; we gals deserve to be laughed at too sometimes (although not as often as you guys :smiley: ).

Alright, please, make a decision here and now. If the IAEA is a defunct organization (since, as you claim, it was “ready to give Iraq a clean bill of health on their nuclear programs”), then what’s the point of Iraq complying with the mandates of the IAEA? Afterall, no matter how far they adhere to their orders, it will never be satisfactory since even if the IAEA gives Iraq a clean bill of health (so to speak) as they have just done, individuals will always claim that the IAEA simply does not cut it anymore. Agreed? So Iraq does not have to comply with the IAEA - it’s a waste of time?

Undoubtedly there are defectors who will lie to get ahead. but their stories can be verified.
The point is that the US has relied upon the defectors for most of their information without seemingly bothering to verify it.

Why did it make those claims about Iraq acquiring uranium from Niger?

Will the US govt. issue a full rebuttal to today’s IAEA report and explain its reasons for issuing false statements in the past? This will go some way, believe me, for individuals like myself to re-acquire some sort of legitimacy towards the US govt. Is the US govt. willing to stand by what it has claimed in the past - and if not - can i expect them to offer some sort of statements making explanations as to why they made baseless allegations against Iraq in the past?

If Saddam told them to speak freely, and that they and their families could leave the country, THEN I would belive that the inspections had a chance.
:halo: Please forgive me, OG, but why do i get the impression that nothing will satisfy you vis-a-vis inspections? With every single demand that has been made on Iraq, the government has complied: palaces, unannounced and unhindered inspections, destruction of al Samoud missiles, and yes - even private interviews between inspectors and scientists:

Iraq allows private scientist interview
Three more scientists give private interview to U.N.

Inspectors being, blocked, physically threatened, locked out, spied upon.
;~) errm what about inspectors spying for the US?

More information about Iraq’s WMD has been discovered from defectors, than from herds of inspectors, and score of satellites.
Yes, and i am certain those defectors - so eager to land that green card or Australian citizenship - are going to give answers to their interrogators that differ from what is expected of them. That defector whose story i included in my last post’s article said it all - he believed his account would help him secure a visa to join family members in Australia. :rolleyes: Talk about inaccuracy.

If some US soldier is killed by a chemical weapon that was never supposed to be there, I will vote for dragging Chirac and Schroeder into the middle of the battlefield, and ask them to breathe deeply.
ouch.

:flower1: But :flower1: (Please take a deep breath and please do NOT get angry with me)…if any Iraqi child is killed by a chemical weapon that was utilized by the US, will you vote for dragging Bush and Blair and ask them to breathe deeply?

11

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:

You guys are laughable.
[/QUOTE]

Now what is laughable is that now the even the UN has rubbished American claims about the Iraqi nuclear programme, and the vast majority of the world will not bend to America's will, is that you have nothing much to back your accusations up with. Keep on making such accusations becuase one by one they are being discredited in front of the world, leaving American's stony faced and clutching at straws. So read the words of the UN IAEA Head again when he says:-

**Inspections were moving forward, and had made important progress. At this stage there was no evidence of resumed nuclear activities in buildings reconstructed since 1988, and there was no evidence that Iraq had tried to import uranium since 1990. **

12

I agree with Nadia.
Ohioguy, your views are based on those reports you read. I couldn't figure out something on this issue. If Iraq has all those weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological or nuclear, etc. When US attacked last time on Iraq, have you ever compared the loss or damage differences between those two countries? If Iraq is capable of all those things, why nothing was used in the war or after?? I don't mean to say that they should've used all those destruction sources, but at least something.... If this new attack starts, what kind of defense Iraq can come up with against world's latest warfare technologies? If you are in Iraq's situation and US is attacking you even against UN's decision, what would you do? Wouldn’t you use any possible source of defense? But lets see. Same thing will be revised again.
Why European countries are against this? And now issue with Turkey? If oil (transportation through pipeline) passes through Turkey, do you know the how much royalty US has to pay to Turkey and Europe?
When you are talking about Iraqi’s scientists, etc. If people are loyal to their country, they shouldn’t leak out confidential info anyways. Iraq already admitted their nuclear program. US know that stuff because they probably invented and distributed that stuff anyways. Why no allegation against them?? Have you read Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk?? I personally talked to both. Reality is totally different.

13

Ok folks, here is where I come down.

A liar is a liar is a liar. Saddam has filed so many false claims before that he has lost credibility.

He SIGNED a cease fire agreement that mandated giving up WMD. The Security Council has insisted on it. I do not find the IAEA to be a bad organization, just one that has all of the cards stacked against it.

How do you explain that for three years, with inspectors all over the country, that they did not discover a viable nuclear weapons program?

You KNOW that Saddam is a brutal totalitarian dictator. If Saddam told the scientists to cooperate they would be falling all over themselves to do it. The fact that nothing has been found could mean a few things. In your wishful thinking, it could mean that Saddam has abandoned all nuclear programs. OK fine. Let's take 20 nuclear scientists out of the country, interview them, and if it appears that there is no problem, cool, he is disarmed. The Nuclear program has always been the least mobile, and most complex.

Secondly, and this is what I believe, Saddam has hidden a lot of WMD programs, and the inspectors have not found them. Satellites and photos are only of limited use. Defectors could help, but unless you are in the country it is terribly hard to verify or not. The lack of evidence DOES NOT mean lack of a program. I am not critical of the inspectors, they are there to verify.

And Nadia, I will join you protesting in the street if my country uses WMD on a first strike basis, particularly if it injures civilians.

Aam-Insaan congratulations on meeting Fisk and Chomsky. Despite that admission I will answer your questions anyway. :)

No, Saddam is not entitled to WMD. And he DID NOT admit his nuclear weapons, he was caught! In this case he has sacrificed that method of self defense, and he must make do with what the Kuwaiti's and the Saudi's and the Baharaini's have, conventional weapons, because he cannot be trusted. The Syrians and Egyptians have huge stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons, and Egypt has even used them. Look it up. No one is demanding the removal of these weapons, as the leadership of these countries are not invading their neighbors or commiting genocide on their people. Hence they will be allowed to keep these weapons.

Saddam did not use WMD against the US in the last gulf war because France and Russia assured him that the US was not going to Baghdad. Big mistake. The Arabs conviced us that he provided stability to the region, and there was no UN resolution to arrest him for genocide. Another complete failure on the part of the UN.

The thing that Fisk and Chomsky have not told you is that tyrants can use these weapons to enslave their people. Saddam has killed way more Muslims than Sharon, but somehow this is forgiven. Once a tyrant gets these weapons then everyone, including his own citizens, cannot be rid of him without severe costs. The opportunity to build a force big enough to "quickly" and "easily" dispatch him does not come around often. But if you think this is simply a matter of the right to defend sovereign territory, then please move to Iraq! What, you don't want to? How about Nadia or Malik? Would you move there? If not, then why do you wish that kind of misery on the Iraqi's?

And please, how many Iraqi's do you believe Saddam has killed? How many does it take to count for "genocide"? The US has screwed up badly by over-focusing this effort on the WMD and the inspections. Even if Saddam gives up his WMD tommorrow, he will still be a genocidal tyrant, and should still be removed.

14

And speaking of evidence that Powell presented, turns out they found that drone that Powell referred to in his presentation to the security council. Blix sort of forgot to mention that.

March 08, 2003

Iraqi drone ‘could drop chemicals on troops’
From James Bone in New York

A REPORT declassified by the United Nations yesterday contained a hidden bombshell with the revelation that inspectors have recently discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone with a wingspan of 7.45m, suggesting an illegal range that could threaten Iraq’s neighbours with chemical and biological weapons.
US officials were outraged that Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, did not inform the Security Council about the drone, or remotely piloted vehicle, in his oral presentation to Foreign Ministers and tried to bury it in a 173-page single-spaced report distributed later in the day. The omission raised serious questions about Dr Blix’s objectivity.

“Recent inspections have also revealed the existence of a drone with a wingspan of 7.45m that has not been declared by Iraq,” the report said. “Officials at the inspection site stated that the drone had been test-flown. Further investigation is required to establish the actual specifications and capabilities of these RPV drones . . . (they) are restricted by the same UN rules as missiles, which limit their range to 150km (92.6 miles).

Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, told the Security Council in February that Washington had evidence that Iraq had test-flown a drone in a race-track pattern for 500km non-stop.

In another section of the declassified report, the inspectors give warning that Iraq still has spraying devices and drop tanks that could be used in dispersing chemical and biological agents from aircraft. “A large number of drop tanks of various types, both imported and locally manufactured, are available and could be modified,” it says.

The paper, obtained by The Times, details the possible chemical and biological arsenal that British and US Forces could face in an invasion of Iraq. The paper suggests that Iraq has huge stockpiles of anthrax, may be developing long-range missiles and could possess chemical and biological R400 aerial bombs and Scud missiles, and even smallpox.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, told his fellow Security Council Foreign Ministers that the document was a“chilling read”.

General Powell resorted to reading passages from the paper out loud in the Council chamber. He pointed out that it chronicled nearly 30 times when Iraq had failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate its claims, and 17 instances when inspectors uncovered evidence that contradicted those claims. But his draft copy, dating from a meeting of the inspectors’ advisory board last week, did not contain the crucial passage about the new drone.

The decision by Dr Blix to declassify the internal report marks the first time the UN has made public its suspicions about Iraq’s banned weapons programmes, rather than what it has been able to actually confirm. “Unmovic has credible information that the total quantity of biological warfare agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 litres more than declared by Iraq. This additional agent was most likely all anthrax,” it says.

The report says there is “credible information” indicating that 21,000 litres of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 litres of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the war and was never destroyed.

The paper, a collection of 29 “clusters” of questions for Iraq, offers some reassurance about Iraq’s missing botulinum toxin, which Unmovic believed is “unlikely to retain much, if any, of its potency” if it has been stockpiled since 1991.
Latest news & breaking headlines | The Times and The Sunday Times

15

Reality is totally different.
Aam-Insaan is right.

OG :slight_smile: i will save you the torture from having to read one of my lengthy replies (i don’t think that is how you would like to spend one of your Saturday mornings anyways). So one question first, and then one comment, for yourself: Iraq possesses a very viable nuclear weapons programme, capable of wiping out the world a couple times over, at the very least. The government has hidden its WMD program, no wonder those useless inspectors can’t find any of it. So my question - IF these two last statements are accurate, then the ones who should be the MOST worried about this Armageddon arsenal, are Iraq’s neighbours because they are geographically the closest. Please answer my question as to why the overwhelming, i repeat overwhelming, majority of Iraq’s neighbours are not in favour of an invasion? If the threat is clear and present, then shouldn’t Iraq’s neighbours be begging us to invade Iraq?

Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, told the Security Council in February that Washington had evidence that Iraq had test-flown a drone in a race-track pattern for 500km non-stop.
:smiley: :flower1: ah yes, would this represent the same “evidence” that was obtained from a university grad student? :smiley: :flower1: (No offence, sorry, lamest joke i could think of).

16

Exactly, and the UN told the world yesterday who was lying…

Baradei says US reports were false](http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=384962)

UK nuclear evidence a fake](UK nuclear evidence a fake | World news | The Guardian)

Whether war or not, I am enjoying America and Britian’s accusations being ripped to shreds, and it’s credibility tarnished for all the world to see. :slight_smile:

17

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Whether war or not, I am enjoying America's accusations being ripped to shreds, and it's credibility tarnished for all the world to see. :)
[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is blatantly clear. No need to state the obvious. To hell with what's good for the long term future of global peace and security, eh? It's like the ugly girl in high school who relishes the big zit the prom queen developed on the end of her nose. Makes those feelings of inadequacy, inferiority and jealousy fade away, doesn't it? What other motiviation is there to defend a habitual proven liar who has killed millions of muslims and suppresses his people?

18

I think the United Nations inspectors i.e. through the international community has been employed to investigate this, and something which the American’s have gone along with until now. The UN has said the US-UK allegations are not true, have dismissed their plagirised dossiers and “intelligence”, so now we have sour American grapes - not surprising but hardly mature huh?

Here read the UN report on Iraq’s nuclear programme in full:-

We have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.

Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets.

…the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic.

We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.

Note where the UN IAEA head says - No evidence, Failed to uncover any evidence, Not authentic, Allegations are unfounded. That’s diplomatic speak for the US-UK are lying, lying, lying and lying. :slight_smile:

19

Deleted <

20

“The most devastating blow yesterday came from Mohamed al-Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who asserted that British and US reports about Iraqi attempts to smuggle uranium out of Niger were fake.”