NYT falsifies IAEA findings on Iran

(10 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

The war-mongering NY Times continues its 57-year long smear campaign against Iran. NYT reports the patently misleading headline, Inspectors say Iran worked on warhead, which might be true, if you were referring to 2003, but the Times’ weasel reporters, David Sanger and William Broad, like Judith Miller and Michael Gordon before them, continue twisting and tormenting the actual facts in order to stove-pipe false intelligence to the American people, because apparently, American needs another monstrous war crime on its bloody hands:

“The United Nations’ nuclear inspectors declared for the first time on Thursday that they had extensive evidence of ‘past or current undisclosed activities’ by Iran’s military to develop a nuclear warhead, an unusually strongly worded conclusion that seems certain to accelerate Iran’s confrontation with the United States and other Western countries.”

Notice how the first paragraph cited suggests the IAEA inspectors’ report is full of brand new findings, extensive evidence, strong conclusions, and certainty about Iran’s nuclear warhead development.  First, there are no new blockbuster findings.  Second, in stark contrast to the Times portrayal of the report, the relevant section of the report (below) could not contain an additional ounce of uncertainty and ambiguity without floating off in NeverLand, being riddled with concerns to be allayed about possibilities and allegations with no hard evidence.  If one had to summarize the relevant section in one sentence, it would read something like this:

IAEA would like to clarify concerns over whether alleged military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear capabilities are true.

The Times’ report is absolutely bristling with dangerous developments, whereas the actual report is pretty flat, and offers no bristling developments, whatsoever.  Also, the report never states who is making the allegations of military dimensions to Iran’s nuke capacity.  Hmmm?

Also, notice how the Times portrays the issue as “Iran’s confrontation” with the West, when based on historical facts, e.g., US-led regime change in Iran, US-backing of Saddams’s invasion of Iran after Iran deposed the Shah, and relentless war-mongering since, just the opposite appears to be the case.  This is clearly the West’s confrontation of Iran over an extremely questionable military dimension to Iran’s right under the Non-proliferation treaty to develop civilian nukes.

This is yellow journalism at its finest.

“The report, the first under the new director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, also concluded that Iran’s weapons-related activity apparently continued ‘beyond 2004,’ contradicting an American intelligence assessment published a little over two years ago that concluded that work on a bomb was suspended at the end of 2003.”

Here’s what the report actually said:

43. The Agency would also like to discuss with Iran: the project and management structure of alleged activities related to nuclear explosives; nuclear related safety arrangements for a number of the alleged projects; details relating to the manufacture of components for high explosives initiation systems; and experiments concerning the generation and detection of neutrons. Addressing these issues is important for clarifying the Agency’s concerns about these activities and those described above, which seem to have continued beyond 2004.

The agency is concerned and would like to clarify whether various alleged activities and multiple activities not specified have continued beyond 2004, as they seem to based on an absence of evidence and allegations.  There is no new evidence contradicting previous reports.    

However, truth does not exist for the NYT, only public opinion matters, and on that agenda, they have succeeded.  According to a CNN poll, 71% of Americans believe Iran has nuclear weapons.  Heckuva job, New York Times.  You not only have some of the stupidest fucking Op-Ed writers on the planet, you probably set a record for flat-out damage to this country based on your propagandist reporters.  The NYT apparently has amnesia about the fact that we’re still in Iraq based on their prior lies.

CNN did not publish the full results, so one cannot ascertain exactly what types of questions preceded and may have colored the answers given on Iran’s nuclear capabilities.  For example, there were questions asked about terrorism (crotchfire guy, abdullmutallab) and Miranda warnings for terrorists (questions 18-21), which could have influenced later responses about Iran (questions 31-34).  Also, there were no questions listed about whether Americans knew that Iran was signatory to the Non-proliferation Treaty, or whether Iran had a right to develop civilian nuclear power, or whether Americans understood that a naval blockade is an act of war.  In other words, CNN‘s poll was the typically biased sort of questionnaire designed to skew results.  

Thank gawd the tub-thumping gits have got their groove back.

Here’s the relevant section of the IAEA 2010 Report:

(all bolding mine)

E. Possible Military Dimensions

40. In order to confirm, as required by the Safeguards Agreement, that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities, the Agency needs to have confidence in the absence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.  Previous reports by the Director General have detailed the outstanding issues and the actions required of Iran,12 including, inter alia, that Iran implement the Additional Protocol and provide the Agency with the information and access necessary to: resolve questions related to the alleged studies; clarify the circumstances of the acquisition of the uranium metal document; clarify procurement and R&D activities of military related institutes and companies that could be nuclear related; and clarify the production of nuclear related equipment and components by companies belonging to the defence industries.

41. The information available to the Agency in connection with these outstanding issues is extensive and has been collected from a variety of sources over time. It is also broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and organizations involved.  Altogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. These alleged activities consist of a number of projects and sub-projects, covering nuclear and missile related aspects, run by military related organizations.

42. Among the activities which the Agency has attempted to discuss with Iran are: activities involving high precision detonators fired simultaneously; studies on the initiation of high explosives and missile re-entry body engineering; a project for the conversion of UO2 to UF4, known as “the green salt project”; and various procurement related activities. Specifically, the Agency has, inter alia, sought clarification of the following: whether Iran was engaged in undeclared activities for the production of UF4 (green salt) involving the Kimia Maadan company; whether Iran’s exploding bridgewire detonator activities were solely for civil or conventional military purposes; whether Iran developed a spherical implosion system, possibly with the assistance of a foreign expert knowledgeable in explosives technology; whether the engineering design and computer modeling studies aimed at producing a new design for the payload chamber of a missile were for a nuclear payload; and the relationship between various attempts by senior Iranian officials with links to military organizations in Iran to obtain nuclear related technology and equipment.

43. The Agency would also like to discuss with Iran: the project and management structure of alleged activities related to nuclear explosives; nuclear related safety arrangements for a number of the alleged projects; details relating to the manufacture of components for high explosives initiation systems; and experiments concerning the generation and detection of neutrons. Addressing these issues is important for clarifying the Agency’s concerns about these activities and those described above, which seem to have continued beyond 2004.

44. Since August 2008, Iran has declined to discuss the above issues with the Agency or to provide any further information and access (to locations and/or people) to address these concerns, asserting that the allegations relating to possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme are baseless and that the information to which the Agency is referring is based on forgeries.

45. With the passage of time and the possible deterioration in the availability of information, it is important that Iran engage with the Agency on these issues, and that the Agency be permitted to visit all relevant sites, have access to all relevant equipment and documentation, and be allowed to interview relevant persons, without further delay. Iran’s substantive engagement would enable the Agency to make progress in its work. Through Iran’s active cooperation, progress has been made in the past in certain other areas where questions have been raised; this should also be possible in connection with questions about military related dimensions.

F. Summary

46. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

47. Iran is not implementing the requirements contained in the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, including implementation of the Additional Protocol, which are essential to building confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions. In particular, Iran needs to cooperate in clarifying outstanding issues which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, and to implement the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part on the early provision of design information.

48. Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has continued with the operation of PFEP and FEP at Natanz, and the construction of a new enrichment plant at Fordow. Iran has also announced the intention to build ten new enrichment plants. Iran recently began feeding low enriched UF6 produced at FEP into one cascade of PFEP with the aim of enriching it up to 20% in U-235. The period of notice provided by Iran regarding related changes made to PFEP was insufficient for the Agency to adjust the existing safeguards procedures before Iran started to feed the material into PFEP. The Agency’s work to verify FFEP and to understand the original purpose of the facility and the chronology of its design and construction remain ongoing. Iran is not providing access to information such as the original design documentation for FFEP or access to companies involved in the design and construction of the plant.

49. Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has also continued with the construction of the IR-40 reactor and related heavy water activities. The Agency has not been permitted to take samples of the heavy water which is stored at UCF, and has not been provided with access to the Heavy Water Production Plant.

50. The Director General requests Iran to take steps towards the full implementation of its Safeguards Agreement and its other obligations, including the implementation of its Additional Protocol.

51. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.