Would the IAEA and the UN really cover-up the new Iran report?

Amir Taheri says "yes, the just might":

MUHAMMAD El Baradei could make the differ ence between war and peace later this week, with his latest report on Iran's nuclear program.

El Baradei, the Egyptian director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, must answer a key question: Has Iran complied with the two resolutions passed by the UN Security Council?

If his answer is yes, the Security Council could pass a resolution confirming Iran's compliance and initiating talks to build on the positive development.
What if Baradei reports that the Islamic Republic is still defying the two resolutions? The council, having fixed a two-month ultimatum, would have to consider tougher measures, even military action.

The common assumption in Western political circles is that the Bush administration would like nothing better than a legal cover for military action against Iran - such as a report that clearly says Iran is defying the UN resolutions.
That consideration might persuade Baradei to avoid giving a clear answer. He isn't as concerned about Iran's building a nuclear arsenal as American and European leaders, who would have to deal with a dangerous adversary that could use the ultimate weapon against them.

Baradei assumes that, were Iran to do big mischief, the Americans would deal with it regardless of what the IAEA says. And if it doesn't, Baradei can spend his retirement on the lecture circuit bragging about his success in preventing another Middle East war.

So the IAEA director may see no reason to anger Iran and risk being targeted by "martyrdom-loving" fanatics by exposing the mullahs' mendacity.

But, by refusing to expose the Islamic Republic's violation of the UN resolutions, Baradei would encourage Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his delusion that Tehran has won - and thus need offer no concessions on the nuclear issue.

We can't stress this point enough. As of right now, Iran possesses missile technology that can strike Eastern and Western Europe. They still continue to make threatening comments towards Israel. Ahmadinejad is still spouting his 12th Imam rhetoric (albeit, more subdued in recent months), and he still sees the Imam's arrival will not only signal the destruction of the "infidels" and the "Zionists," but also to restore the caliphate that Iran (Persia) once comprised.

The UN doesn't want to see another war in the region. As a matter of fact, they still haven't quit complaining about the non-unilateral actions taken by America in Iraq. My guess is right in line with Mr. Taheri's: To avoid ruffling Iran's feathers, both will probably whitewash the report. This doesn't help the world, nor does it help Iran. While the UN may not want to act on the Iranian nuclear program, a coalition of nations could send a stronger message with sanctions of their own, and yes, maybe even limited military action.

We get it. Europe gets it. Israel gets it. Iran can't be allowed to get these destructive weapons. Their desire to have them has little to do with what Ahmadinejad and the mullahs claim is a "natural right" (a phrase that dhimmis covering for Iran use often in arguments), nor does it have a great deal to do with energy. It has everything to do with subjugation, terror, and blackmail.

Publius II