Many Angry Gerbils

The Guardian: ever the faithful cheerleader

The Guardian front page on yesterday's IAEA report is quite unforgivable.

I sent this to Julian Borger and the Guardian's Reader's Editor this morning:

Dear Mr. Borger,

where exactly in yesterday's IAEA report does it say that Iran can now "build a warhead within a year"? I've read the report and see no evidence of such a statement. The report does say that Iran has 3000 centrifuges running but nowhere does it draw the conclusion that Iran can now build a warhead within a year -since, as you well know, there is far more to building a nuclear warhead than merely having the HEU. Indeed, even 3000 centrifuges can only produce sufficient HEU assuming that everything runs smoothly during that time.

The IAEA position, as voiced by Dr. El Baradei, is that Iran would be at least three years from a nuclear weapon assuming that it were to try to develop  one -a proposition for which there is yet "no concrete evidence". It looks to me like you have drawn your own conclusions and attributed them to the IAEA.  This is highly irresponsible and, what is more, it is frankly hard to believe that you could be quite so cavalier given the media's sordid record as cheerleader to the Iraq attrocity.

Yours sincerely,

[Gerbil001]

IAEA produces latest report on Iran

I don't have much to say about this yet, as the report has not yet been released for public consumption (though the Associated Press have a copy it seems). [SEE UPDATE BELOW]

What I can do is direct your attention to this report from the Canadian Press. From my cursory survey of the major outlets, this is the most temperate and balanced account of what is so far known. It notes, for example, that Iran "appears to have been truthful about key aspects of its nuclear history" while also reporting that the IAEA  is concerned that "its knowledge of Tehran's current nuclear program is shrinking".

Refreshingly, the report also reminds the reader that Iran bases its refusal to accede to the Security Council demand, that it cease enriching uranium, on "provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that give all countries the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes" - not something you tend to read in the press here. Something else the Canadian Press manages is to not present government statements as self-evidently true, writing instead that, while Iran claims not to be developing the bomb, a "number of western countries, led by Washington, say they are not so sure." Did you notice that? They say -that's quite a step up from the institutionalized fealty of our Dogged Pursuers of the Truth (TM).

The US response has been predictably swift and negative, with Condoleezza Rice responding that the IAEA report "makes clear that Iran seems uninterested in working with the rest of the world, and the current Iranian government continues to push Iran deeper into isolation." Just as with Iraq, cooperation is not greeted with encouragement but with scarcely hidden disappointment and frustration, as it makes their task - developing a pretext to bomb -  that little bit harder.

Meanwhile, the relatively left-wing Israeli intelligence analyst, Yossi Melman, writes in Haaretz that the recent campaign of character assassination by Israeli ministers may have been a blunder. Melman hankers for the days of Sharonian subtly, when they let other states make the running against Iran, noting that it is "tough to enlist the international community for a campaign to disarm a country of its nuclear program when Israel is spearheading it". This is because, as he adds coyly, "the world considers Israel itself a nuclear power." Not that Melman is unsympathetic. "One may be furious with Elbaradei's conduct," he writes, since he has treated Iran "gently" and is helping them "evade clear answers". Not only that but ElBaradei, "an Egyptian by origin, is not known for his love of Israel. To Israel's displeasure, he repeatedly tried to initiate a move for nuclear disarmament in the Middle East, which means only one thing: Israel gives up its weapons." Melman agrees with the world, it seems. Clearly though, ElBaradei's attempts to bring about a nuclear free zone in the Middle East mark him as a threat to Israel. Moreover, anyone who dares remember that this has been called for repeatedly by the UN (including in UN Security Council Resolution 687) and is hardly a new idea has no credibility and is irrelevant. 

Anyway, now the "tirades" by certain Israeli ministers have jeopardized the silence gambit and have served only to bolster ElBaradei's standing amongst certain other countries. Melman's remarks presumably represent disquiet in certain parts of the Israei establishment that they have over-played their hand. In the days ahead it will be interesting to see whether the Israeli firebrands hold their tongues and let the US take the lead.

Update:

The BBC has a copy of the report on its site. On the plus side, the IAEA reports that, once again, it "has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran." Furthermore,  "Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities." Iran has also "provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on issues raised in the context of the work plan. However, its cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive." The agency also states that the answers Iran has given are consistent with their own findings. 

The most significant point seems to be that the IAEA is keen for Iran to fully implement the Additional Protocol:

Although the Agency has no concrete information, other than that addressed through the work plan, about possible current undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, the Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran without full implementation of the Additional Protocol.

So, in summary - and this is based on a brief reading of the report - the IAEA continues to report that there is no evidence Iran is diverting any of its declared nuclear material to military use. So Iran remains in compliance with the NPT. There is also no concrete evidence that there are any undeclared activities. Iranian cooperation has clearly been significant if imperfect but the key stumbling block is the Additional Protocol, the implementation of which would allow the IAEA to verify that there is no undeclared activity either. While it would be a positive step for Iran to implement this, it's worth adding some context. Firstly, plenty of states have still to implement the Additional Protocol - 42 of them in 2004. Secondly, Iran did actually implement the Additional Protocol (and ceased enrichment), voluntarily in December 2003 and continued to do so until 2005 when negotiations with the EU faltered. In that time, the IAEA still found no evidence Iran was developing nuclear weapons.

So, will the IAEA be given space to pursue this trend of increased cooperation and will the US and Israel cut out the rhetoric about the "Iranian threat"? Not likely.

Bolton slams the UN’s “nuclear watchpuppy”

John Bolton is something of a favourite here. He’s Boris Johnson turned to the dark side, a mad Dulux dog shaking black and red paint from his matted fur. His refreshingly inept/honest approach to diplomacy frequently produces words to treasure. This, allied to his blinkered thinking and stupendous, unvarnished arrogance, really merits some kind of award. What is mystifying, though, is that he is still sought for comment, be it in the American media or by the BBC (Newsnight seems especially hooked on his strident lunacy). The fact that journalists still nod gravely when men such as Bolton, Perle, and Frum speak must be an indicator that the articulation of the views of power is valued beyond such trifles as their accuracy. The latest outlet to grant Bolton inexplicable credence is CNN's Late Edition, with Wolf Blitzer.

This time Bolton’s up to his moustache in the soft flesh of the IAEA and has supplied us with some choice quotations. Mohammed ElBaradei, says Bolton, is “an apologist for Iran.”  So far, so Bolton. More interesting is his response to Wolf Blitzer’s point that ElBaradei was correct about Iraq’s lack of nuclear capability. As Blitzer puts it, he was “right on a major, major justification for going to war.” Bolton’s answer to this is comical:

 

I’m not aware there was any disagreement with the Bush administration that Saddam did not have the physical capacity in his nuclear program, but he did have the intention and he had the record of having pursued them in the past.

Assuming that Bolton is not grotesquely ignorant or suffering some kind of memory disorder then this must rank as one of the most crushingly dishonest statements he has made. The IAEA position, as is well known, was that there was no evidence Iraq had nuclear weapons. Bolton’s assertion is so easily disproved that one might assume that he (rightly) did not expect the remark to be subjected to any sort of scrutiny by the interviewer.

In fact, the IAEA and the White House were poles apart on the issue of Iraq’s nuclear capability. The IAEA’s position, as of March 17^th 2003 when they were effectively expelled from Iraq by the US, was that they “had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq”. Contrast this with Dick Cheney’s statement, on NBC’s Meet The Press, on March 16^th, 2003:

And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq is concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past.(1)

Bolton attempts to weasel his way out of this one by pointing to the fact that Iraq still retained nuclear expertise, although quite how they were expected to dispense with this without shooting a lot of scientists is another question. What is more interesting is Bolton’s phrase that “There may not have been centrifuge cascades spinning, but Saddam had the intellectual capability to put that program right back together.” Now, I can’t prove it but this sentence may be evidence of just what a top-notch propagandist Bolton really is. He could have said no evidence of “stockpiles” or “equipment” or whatever, but he used the phrase “centrifuge cascades”. Now, which country is closely associated at present with “centrifuge cascades”? Of course, centrifuges are required for all uranium enrichment, civilian or military, but Bolton can rely on many people only hearing about centrifuges in the context of weaponization. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but I wonder how many people heard this and thought “hold on, Iran does have centrifuge cascades, they even admit it: Iran must be developing a nuclear bomb”. If it was deliberate, it was a master-stroke -using a partial denial of propaganda against Iraq as propaganda against Iran.

Finally, Bolton was asked about ElBaradei’s reaction to Israel’s recent bombing of a building in Syria, which may or may not have been a nuclear facility of some sort. Blitzer put to him ElBaradei’s position, that Israel should have reported their concerns to the IAEA who could then have dispatched inspectors to the facility, as is their job. Bolton was clearly outraged that Israel should have been expected to abide by international law like this:

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The notion that Israel or the United States would put their national security in the IAEA’s hands is just delusional.

And, of course, Bolton is correct because “security”, in the sense he means it, does not mean only physical safety and the ability to conduct one’s life free from undue interference. The official US definition of security goes far beyond this, as anyone who cares to read the US National Security Strategy will discover. As it makes clear, the aim of their strategy is “to help make the world not just safer but better” and this encompasses reforming the world in accordance with American aspirations and “non-negotiable demands”. “The lessons of history are clear” and the US will use all its power to promote “real freedom”, which it defines as “free trade”. To me, the National Security Strategy reads less like a plan for protecting a nation and more like a blueprint for an empire. Within that context, “anticipatory” self-defence - the right to unilaterally identify and eliminate potential threats - makes sense, as does Bolton’s contempt for the IAEA. International bodies are to be tolerated only when useful. As Bolton has said of the UN itself, it is only “an instrument to advance America’s foreign policy interests”. This should be borne in mind by everyone who follows the developments in coming weeks over Iran’s nuclear programme, the IAEA, and the US and Israeli response. But let's leave the last word to Honest John:

It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so - because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States.

_____________________

Note.

(1) It’s right to note that Cheney later claimed to have “misspoke” and that he meant weapons programmes rather than weapons themselves. Indeed, some commentators have argued that those who cite this quotation as another example of White House lying are themselves being dishonest. To this, I say the following. Firstly, so far as I’m aware, Cheney did not make his clarification until September 2003, when he was presented with the opportunity on Meet the Press. In order words, after stating on national TV that Iraq had one or more nuclear weapons, Cheney waited six months before correcting himself. I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusion. Secondly, since we have only Cheney’s word that he “misspoke”, the sensible approach is to evaluate the statement and Cheney’s explanation in the context of the US Government's record of veracity during the run up to the invasion. Once again, I leave the reader to draw their own conclusions. It’s also worth noting that, evening leaving the matter of Iraq having actual nuclear weapons to one side, the White House repeatedly stated that the country had ongoing nuclear weapons programmes, which still put them sharply at odds with the IAEA.

The knife slides a little further...

A quick update to my previous post. The Daily Telegraph reports today that Israel's Deputy Prime Minister, Shaul Mofaz, has called for Mohammed ElBaradei to be sacked because his "complacency" endangers  "world peace".  Ehud Olmert, meanwhile, has said -very charitably- that while he would not label ElBaradei "an enemy of Israel", he is "certainly not a fan either." Now why would anyone not be a fan of Israel (or rather its government)?

The IAEA is due to release a report on Iran's nuclear programme on November 22. Expect more spin than a bunker full of centrifuges...

The latest 'obstacle to peace'

Mohammed ElBaradei can probably feel the stiletto dimple his skin. Yesterday, the Director-General of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Aharon Abramovich, complained that the IAEA is obstructing what he described as the “international efforts” against Iran. The Minister for Strategic Affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, has joined the attack and Mark Regev is ever the hi-fidelity amplifier. The charge is simple: ElBaradei is going easy on the Iranians, even to the point of putting himself at odds with his own staff. Ynet News quotes “diplomatic sources” who allege that ElBaradei is “wrapping the agency inspectors' professional report with an introduction and summary remarks which create a political 'spin'.” The US Government, too, has chided ElBaradei, for presuming to criticise its rhetoric.

Nor are the Governments alone. With rather convenient timing, Professor Gerald M. Steinberg of the Bar-Ilan University weighed in  on Sunday. On the website of the, I think it’s fair to say, heavily partisan Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, he writes that ElBaradei is “insisting on denying the obvious” about the “overwhelming” evidence, which “is staring everyone in the face”, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. So overwhelming is the evidence, in fact, that Steinberg feels no call to mention any of it, aside from a single sentence about Iran’s previous involvement with the A-Q Khan network and its alleged past importation of components not suited to civilian nuclear power. Steinberg charges outright that the IAEA is “covering up wholesale violations of the NPT and the efforts of the extremist leaders of the Islamic Republic to acquire nuclear weapons.” This is a grave accusation for which Steinberg supplies no evidence. In fact, he then contradicts himself in his very next sentence by stating that the IAEA is not covering anything up at all but rather that,

For over three years, the quarterly IAEA reports on Iran contained the details of violations, obstruction of inspector's visits, important inconsistencies between official claims and the results of tests from samples taken from various facilities, and other forms of non-compliance. But the final assessment in each report, signed by the director-general, absurdly concluded that this evidence did not demonstrate that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons.

So, in reality, the charge of cover up is reckless and absurd, since the “wholesale” violations that the IAEA is accused of covering up are detailed in its own reports. In fact, Steinberg disagrees with the IAEA’s conclusions. Nor can he resist a few idle references to the fact that ElBaradei is one of them, noting charitably that he “is an Egyptian national, but without a history of ideologically or religiously motivated policies or statements” and that he may be “anti-American”. Associates of Avigdor Lieberman, doubtless gifted psychologists, allege that “Deep down inside, Elbaradei identified with the Iranians on the personal basic level”. Well, why wouldn’t he? He’s called Mohammed, what more proof do we need? Such classic smears bespeak a paucity of rational arguments.

In truth, of course there are reasons to be suspicious of Iranian ambitions but suspicions are not evidence. If there was compelling evidence that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, then Israel or the US would present it. So far, they have not. Indeed, when the US Congress produced a report on Iran's nuclear programme it was denounced by the IAEA as "outrageous and dishonest". Instead, the stress is laid on intent. Yet, as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists recently observed, the latency of any threat is based on a combination of capability and intent. So far, no one has demonstrated that Iran has the capability to manufacture a nuclear weapon, as their nuclear power programme is still in its “infancy”. Yet at least capability can be measured -as the IAEA has done. Intent, as the Bulletin notes, “is in the eyes of the beholder.”

The United States has taken the lead in proclaiming that Iran is conducting a nuclear weapons program. Iran has disavowed this notion by issuing a fatwa, or holy edict, declaring that nuclear weapons are instruments of the devil. The IAEA has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program but also no conclusive evidence that denies such a program's existence... Indeed, since it's surrounded by nuclear-armed entities, Iran could be motivated to acquire nuclear weapons, but intent to do so has not been established.

The difficulty with the Bulletin’s take is that, while technically accurate, it assumes transparency by international actors. If we have had any lesson repeatedly taught to us in recent years, however, it is that transparency - honesty - cannot be assumed, particularly where the current US Administration is concerned. Intent is in the eyes of the beholder particularly when that is what they want to see. For an empire that creates its own reality, intent is just another fact to be “fixed around the policy”.

Both the US and Israel obviously have other interests in the region so one cannot assume that their professed security concerns are genuine. The Israeli Government’s repeated protestations that Israel is under an existential threat are hard to take seriously, especially when it is actively erasing another people from the face of the earth. Even a nuclear armed Iran is not regarded in all quarters as the threat it is trumpeted to be. In October, Haaretz reported that the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, had admitted that “Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel”. The report went on to state that “Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears.” Livni's reported remarks echo those of Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad, that “We cannot say that the Iranian threat is an existential threat on the State of Israel.” US policy in the region scarcely requires rehearsal here.

The snipes at ElBaradei and the IAEA are strikingly reminiscent of similar smears against them, and Hans Blix and UNMOVIC, prior to the Iraq invasion. According to Dr. Stephen Pullinger, writing in the May/June 2004 edition of Disarmament Diplomacy, the Bush Administration “actively sought to undermine the inspectors, accusing them of playing down the threat from Saddam's WMD.” Pullinger quotes Blix’s account of a meeting between ElBaradei and Dick Cheney at which Cheney made it clear that “if the inspections did not give results the US was ‘ready to discredit inspections in favour of disarmament’”. Blix - who was no dove - also alleged that there were US officials - “bastards” - who had "spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media". In his view, the US administration “swung from seeing the inspection reports as potential assets in underpinning a future demand for armed action to identifying them as an impediment, the authority of which the US needed to undermine.”

Again, the parallels between then and now are clear to anyone who wishes to see. Steinberg’s toothless accusation of an IAEA cover-up when, in fact, he merely finds their conclusion unpalatable, repeats similar complaints made about Blix. A. J. Chien, for example, argues that the US tried to discredit Blix with specific claims that he had “avoided mentioning the discovery of a drone and cluster bomb that, the US concluded, were for the delivery of chemical weapons.” In fact, Blix had mentioned the drone, but drawn a different conclusion, one supported by the US Air Force. Similarities can also be seen between Steinberg’s rigid assumption that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and that ElBaradei is therefore “complicit” by covering up the evidence and the Heritage Foundation’s similarly obtuse (if not tendentious) complaint that Blix had “unilaterally decided to continue inspections until at least March, despite Iraq's obstinate refusal to disarm.” In both cases, logic is thrown to the winds as all efforts to validate the hypothesis are evaluated from the standpoint that the hypothesis is correct.

Attempts to prevent conflict are often painted as increasing the chances of conflict. For instance, Prof. Steinberg asserts that “El-Baradei's complicity in the Iranian effort to acquire nuclear weapons is counterproductive. The further that Iran advances, the higher the probability of confrontation and military action in the next two to four years.” This is again very reminiscent of 2003. The US Government presented opposition to its manifest desire to attack Iraq as a threat to peace because it undermined the united front it sought to present. At the Azores summit in March 2003, Bush delivered an ultimatum to the UN: support the invasion or not but we will invade. This was described variously as a “last push for peace” and going “the last mile” for diplomacy. This tendency achieved epic absurdity in 2006 during Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon. Bush and Blair once more defied the will of the international community and refused to join the chorus for a ceasefire. Given that the US could have stopped the attack with a word and that Britain was actively supplying Israel with arms, via Prestwick Airport, this made both countries not merely appeasers but accessories to the crime. Yet, while forced to acknowledge these realities, both the BBC and the Daily Telegraph felt able to describe Blair’s abetting of international terrorism as a “peace push” or a “push for peace”.

The growing swell around the IAEA appears to repeat this pattern of deception in which those who oppose the empire are described as (unwitting) enemies of peace. International institutions are seen as a means to an end and diplomacy merely a dance. While they mouth platitudes of peace and claim that nothing is inevitable, the pieces are put in place with little attempt to hide them, since the media understands already those things it won't do to see. Mohammed ElBaradei has been identified as, to use the Washington Post's phrase, a "rogue regulator", the latest 'obstacle to peace'. Now moves have begun, it seems, to remove this obstacle. I am not naïve enough to think for a moment that a clean sheet from the IAEA (assuming Iran deserves it) will in itself save the Iranians from the fire but, undeniably, it will make US aggression harder, which is why contingency pretexts (about Iranian ‘crimes’ in Iraq) have already been put in place. It is this failure to "play ball" in US designs against Iran that has made ElBaradei a target and the IAEA (to use an old phrase of American diplomacy) a "hostile forum".  So I expect to see more smears and disparagements of the man and the organisation as it loses ‘credibility’ and falls into the pit of ‘irrelevance’.