Iran's Nuclear Status - Where Lies the Truth?
Flash fires on Iran's nuclear status and capability are back in the news. From google images of an alleged underground nuclear site to a seemingly endless supply of pundits - the news is Iran. While Iran has admitted the existence of an undeclared nuclear site, their actual nuclear weapons status remains a question mark. This makes Iran's alleged nuclear status is front and center - again. However, other recent news should sound a note of caution about what is real.
On September 2, 2009, Reuters reported that ElBaradei believes the nuclear threat is "hyped." According to the article:
This does not mean that ElBaradei is giving Iran a bye on the issue. He has consistently called for greater transparency from Iran. However, he does not see the imminent threat claims that keep reemerging from Israel, and under Bush, and now under Obama.
Perhaps part of his hesitancy regarding the imminent threat posed by Iran has to do with the documentation the IAEA has been looking at regarding Iran's nuclear status and ambitions. This comes in the form of sheaves of documentation coming from the United States and other "western" nations. The concerns over this documentation were discussed by Gareth Porter writing for the Inter Press Service on September 14, 2009.
According to Porter, and verified by his sources, is that there is possible veracity to Iran's claim that these documents are forgeries. While the IAEA tacitly vouches for the credibility of the documents as they "appear(s) to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, is detailed in content and appears to be generally consistent". However:
The IAEA has responded to this issue by suggesting that perhaps the supplying agencies have removed these types of identifying markers. As noted by Porter, why would an agency remove marking from documents that proved the validity of their origins and nature? Porter gives one specific example of the type of document which Iran claims is fraudulent:
I don't know what the status is of Iran's nuclear projects - nor their purpose. However, once burned twice cautious as they say. It makes me quite nervous that the corporate media seems to not be any more cautious in jumping on the "Bad Iran" band wagon than they were on the "Bad Iraq" band wagon. Either they are stupid and don't learn from their mistakes, or they have much to gain from unquestionably beating the drums.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said there was no concrete evidence that Tehran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program. "But somehow, many people are talking about how Iran's nuclear program is the greatest threat to the world. In many ways, I think the threat has been hyped," he told the specialist Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
This does not mean that ElBaradei is giving Iran a bye on the issue. He has consistently called for greater transparency from Iran. However, he does not see the imminent threat claims that keep reemerging from Israel, and under Bush, and now under Obama.
Perhaps part of his hesitancy regarding the imminent threat posed by Iran has to do with the documentation the IAEA has been looking at regarding Iran's nuclear status and ambitions. This comes in the form of sheaves of documentation coming from the United States and other "western" nations. The concerns over this documentation were discussed by Gareth Porter writing for the Inter Press Service on September 14, 2009.
According to Porter, and verified by his sources, is that there is possible veracity to Iran's claim that these documents are forgeries. While the IAEA tacitly vouches for the credibility of the documents as they "appear(s) to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, is detailed in content and appears to be generally consistent". However:
Iran has submitted serious evidence that the documents are fraudulent. Iran's permanent representative to the United Nations in Vienna, Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told IPS in an interview he had pointed out to a team of IAEA officials in a meeting on the documents in Tehran in spring 2008 that none of the supposedly top secret military documents had any security markings of any kind, and that purported letters from defence ministry officials lacked Iranian government seals. Soltanieh recalled that he had made the same point "many times" in meetings of the Board of Governors since then. "No one ever challenged me," said the ambassador.
The IAEA has responded to this issue by suggesting that perhaps the supplying agencies have removed these types of identifying markers. As noted by Porter, why would an agency remove marking from documents that proved the validity of their origins and nature? Porter gives one specific example of the type of document which Iran claims is fraudulent:
Iran has also provided the IAEA with evidence that the handwritten notes on a May 2003 letter, which supposedly link a private Iranian contractor to the "alleged studies", were forged by an outside agency. The letter was from an engineering firm to the private company Kimia Maadan, which other documents in the collection identify as responsible for part of the alleged covert nuclear weapons programme called the "green salt project".I am starting to hear a lot of "You can't believe Iran because they have consistently lied to us." This sounds suspiciously like the methodology used to justify discounting Iraq's claim they did not have "Weapons of Mass Destruction." We were told the "Hussein's a liar, has always lied, he's lying now." Well we know how that turned out.
The letter itself has nothing to do with any "green salt" project, but handwritten notes on the copy of the letter given to the IAEA by an unidentified government referred to individuals who are named in other intelligence documents as participants in the "alleged studies", according to the latest IAEA report.
But the original letter, which Iran has provided to the IAEA, has no handwritten notes on it. Amb. Soltanieh recalled that he showed that original letter to an IAEA team led by the deputy director of IAEA's Safeguards Department, Herman Nackaerts, in Tehran Jan. 22-23, 2008.
He said the IAEA team was able to compare the original document with the copy that they had been given as part of the alleged studies documents and that Nakaerts declared that his team accepted the authenticity of the original they were shown.
I don't know what the status is of Iran's nuclear projects - nor their purpose. However, once burned twice cautious as they say. It makes me quite nervous that the corporate media seems to not be any more cautious in jumping on the "Bad Iran" band wagon than they were on the "Bad Iraq" band wagon. Either they are stupid and don't learn from their mistakes, or they have much to gain from unquestionably beating the drums.
Advertisement
I agree with your skepticism. Even if they had nukes, MAD would keep them from using them.
There are far more worrisome things, like world poverty that are likely far more dangerous to world stability. No one ever talks about those.
September 26, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
MAD does not work with a mad man in charge. The Iranian pres has said repeatedly he would sacrifice half his population to destroy Israel. Add to that the foolish talk from Obama about scrapping all nuclear weapons which would eliminate our ability to respond, and his decision to eliminate our ability to defend against an attack, and the US is on the verge of being vulnerable to nuclear blackmail from a regime like Iran.
September 27, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I get nervous when there is all this saber rattling to drum up support for military action, and I certainly see that happening. It also raises the question whether Obama - who is supposedly supporting a zero nukes strategy, would use "strategic" nuclear strikes in Iran (or support Israel's use of same). No one is asking that either as far as I can see.
September 26, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
WHY DOES ALL THIS SOUND SO GODDAMNABLY FAMILIAR?
I do feel safer with My President in charge of all this than if cheney and rummy were running the WH. That is for sure.
Those bastards wished to go into Iran from the start, just like Iraq.
The good news is that a lot of young, middle class is arising in Iran and they are sneaking peaks at western news sources as well as good old rock n roll.
This time, when the UN inspects, WE MIGHT LISTEN TO THEIR FINDINGS.
Good solid post as always Rowan. Thank you.
September 26, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks DD. Unfortunately the saber rattling IS under Obama. And those Iranians who have risked so much on the streets of Iran may feel differently if bombs start dropping.
September 26, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, Rowan. I have been thinking about this all day, spent a little time trying to find out what a few sources who seem credible to me are thinking. No luck so far. Maybe it's too new.
What I got from interviews I heard, I thought, was that there was new info from the past couple months about the inside-the-mountain installation, and that it has ROOM for X amount of centrifuges. I thought some of the intel had come from France and Britain, but it seemed enough to convince Medvedev of its authenticity. Don't know about China, though their point person didn't seem that keen on punishing Iran.
Russia's help on Iran is, of course, what Obama was looking for when he scaled back the SDI-type system in Poland to focus on what, mid-range missiles? If China could get on board, we'd have a ball-gamme, wouldn't we? Obama apparently didn't want to confront Ahmedinejad early on and risk undermining the non-proliferation talks, but lots of the parties seemed eager for him to speak about it sooner than later. I thought I'd heard someone say that the intel about the hidden program came before Ahmed 'fessed up in "the hastil writeen note."
I think Obama knows he has to keep up pressure, but I hope he doesn't jettison the Talking. Of course Israel will be crowing, and the Neo-cons will be going nuts tomorrow on the Sunday Shows. But this may just be a case of Obama's chess moves being twelve steps ahead of us. I hope. I hope. And the middle-class Iranians hope.
September 26, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I strongly suspect that China, Russia, and India (if called upon) will be quite reluctant to push Iran so far. In fact, China and Iran have held joint naval exercises in the past.
However, like you, I fervently hope that the move is towards dialog and not military operations.
September 26, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran broke the rules. Iran was obligated to disclose any intent to build a nuclear facility.
As an analyst James C. Acton says,
In the 4th update to his story dated Sept. 26, Glenn Greenwald calls Acton's analysis "plausible."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/26/iran/index.html
September 26, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if the facility is within the 180 day window, then they are required to inform. If Iran is sticking to that arrangement, then then announcement of the facility by Iran, and their agreement to allow inspections by the IAEA is in compliance.
It is noteworthy that the United States also has an IAEA Safeguards Agreement. However, the U.S. only has to list those facilities which are "eligible for IAEA safeguards. This list does not include facilities having "direct national security significance" and the United States notifies the IAEA whenever it adds or removes a site from the list."
September 26, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truthseeker, do you have evidence that Iran has already introduce nuclear materials into this facility? The media commentary I've seen seems to say that Iran has been building this facility but that it has not yet gone operational and is, in fact, not even close to going operational. That means the Iranians haven't lied about their program but are adhering to the letter of their international obligations. What deals would you suggest we offer to induce them to go beyond what they've already accepted, besides just beating them up like a schoolyard bully?
September 26, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a pretty clear explanation of where Iran stands on those modified "subsidiary arrangements."
http://original.antiwar.com/prather/2009/08/21/iaea-legal-expert-stifles-neocrazies/
It's sort of like the U.S. position toward the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court: signed but not ratified.
No one would argue the U.S. is legally subject to the ICC or to the emission curbs Kyoto sets out.
September 27, 2009 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rowan, The reason why I think Denmark smells funny these days is because of the MEK thread that connects many of these stories. MEK stands for Mujahideen-e-Khalq, aka People's Mujahedin, aka National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) along with other assorted acronyms. It is an Iranian dissident group that wants to overthrow the Islamic regime. It reportedly has had long-time ties to Israeli intelligence and received arms and intelligence from the US.
This is Gareth Porter back in June:
Con't in next comment.
September 26, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then there is yesterday's Global Security Newswire article, Iran Informs IAEA of Clandestine Enrichment Site:
Laura Rozen has tied the MEK to the Office of Special Plans (Feith's little CIA that couldn't) in the Pentagon and the run up to the Iraq war, but I don't have enough room for those links. Let me know if you want them, though.
September 26, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the expanded discussion Seashell. Cheezburgers in the mail. I would certainly like the additional sources. If you send them to me, then I will add them to the original post - no limit there on links. Anyway, if you want, you can get my email from the email link at my personal site Uncommon Thought Journal.
September 26, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting at the truth specifies that there exists a trust relationship. No such relationship exists.
This is why we have half the nation believing one thing and the other half believing something else. The general populace, variably, has nobody in government who they think is trustworthy. The public polling of congressional performance is a direct reflection of this.
No Trust = No Truth = Disagreement = Conflict.
I'd have to go back almost four decades to recall a reasonable comfort level with my trust of government. I think the general state of perceived decline of America tracks quite closely with that assessment. Unfortunately, a significant portion of our population doesn't have the means to make that comparative.
September 27, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rowan,
You are right to keep up the suspicion. Lest we forget this is the map we are playing with. I despise the Iranian regime, but I don't trust our Military industrial complex either. Presidents come and they go, but Geopolitical chess is always being played.
September 27, 2009 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know the post is off the list, but thanks for the excellent map link Saladin!
September 27, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure how the statement made by El Baradei about hyping of the threat is as relevant as perhaps it was now that Iran has disclosed the existence of this underground facility to him and his organization, the IAEA. What El Baradei would say now that he is aware of this underground facility would be of more interest and relevance I think.
September 27, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink