UPDATED Iran's Nukes: The Dangerous News of The New York Times

UPDATE 1500 GMT: More signals that the Sanger-Broad "news" of undeclared Iranian enrichment facilities as an imminent threat, either to security or to political strategy, is not supported by most Obama Administration officials . Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told ABC News this morning:
---
Here we go again.

We are going to continue to put pressure on Iran,” she said. “We’re going to have a coalition that will really put pressure on Iran and will stop them from doing what they are trying to do. Over the last year, what we’ve seen when the President came into office, there was a unified Iran. Now we’re seeing a lot of divisions within the country. And we’re seeing steady progress in terms of a world coalition that will put that pressure on Iran.

 
Iran's Nukes: False Alarm Journalism (Sick)

The declared line by both Jarrett and senior advisor David Axelrod is that the US is on the way to "a strong regime of sanctions" against Iran --- today's spin is that Russia is on board --- the more successful undeclared strategy is getting individual companies, both from pressure from the US Government and from Washington's allies, to leave Iran.

There had been a few weeks of silence from the Iran Nuclear Beat of The New York Times --- reporters David Sanger and William Broad --- since the last meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency at the end of February.



On that occasion, their reporting, fed by a set of IAEA and "Western" officials who want a tougher line on Tehran, had declared that the IAEA would issue a much tougher report over Iran's approach to a militarised nuclear programme. In the end, the statement of the IAEA's Secretary-General, Yukiya Amano, offered little new, even if Amano's rhetoric was a bit more strident than that of his predecessor, Mohammad el-Baradei.

Well, the boys are back this morning with a double-barrelled picture of showdown and possible war: the two declare, "Agencies Suspect Iran is Planning New Nuclear Sites", and Sanger adds the speculative piece, "Imagining an Israeli Strike on Iran".

As usual, the Sanger/Broad article is constructed on a patchwork of "Western officials" using the pair as a channel for their line on Iran, some twisting of words, and a disregard for context. The very first sentence is a guide: "Six months after the revelation of a secret nuclear enrichment site in Iran...." ignores the fact that Tehran declared the "secret" site to the IAEA. (There is a justifiable argument that Iran was forced into the declaration because Western officials, based on intelligence, were about to "out" the Fordoo plant near Qom, but that's a complexity beyond the New York Times piece.)

In this case, Sanger and Broad's entire declaration of drama rests on the standard process of IAEA inspectors looking for any sign of undeclared Iranian uranium enrichment sites. This is not earth-shaking: a series of IAEA reports have declared that, while there is no sign that Iran has diverted uranium to enrichment for military purposes, the Agency is looking for full disclosure from Tehran.

So what's new? Here, beyond the breathless invocation that "this article is based on interviews with officials of several governments and international agencies", is the total of Sanger and Broad's research: 1) the head of Iran's nuclear energy agency, Ali Akhbar Salehi, said that Tehran would build more enrichment plants (which indicates that Iran's intentions are not exactly covert and, despite Sanger and Broad's claim, was noted by news sites like EA); 2) some "recently manufactured uranium enrichment equipment" is not yet in the Natanz or Fordoo plants (which leaves the far from ominous possibility that it might be awaiting shipment to those plants or may be put on a 3rd site if Iran backs up Salehi's claim).

And that's it. There is no evidence here --- none, nothing, nada --- that Iran has or is anywhere close to an undeclared operational enrichment site. There is nothing here which indicates that, even if the site existed, it is being set up for a military programme rather than as a plant for enrichment of uranium to the 20 percent allowed by international regulations.

(In fact, a sharp-eyed reader will note that Sanger and Broad weaken the shaky foundations of their analysis with this paragraph slipped into the middle of the article: "American officials say they share the I.A.E.A.’s suspicions and are examining satellite evidence about a number of suspected sites. But they have found no solid clues yet that Iran intends to use them to produce nuclear fuel, and they are less certain about the number of sites Iran may be planning.")

And there is nothing here which indicates that Sanger and Broad have even glanced at their series of articles over recent months which have breathlessly implied Iran's march to a covert military programme for its uranium, articles which have evaporated without support for their claims , propped up by IAEA officials upset with the Agency's leadership or by US Government officials seeking an outlet for political moves rather than by any substantial investigation.

So what's the big deal? If indeed this is poor journalism, it should dissipate just like its predecessors.

Well, even poor journalism can have consequences, especially when it is buttressed by ominous speculation. On the surface, Sanger's "Imagining an Israeli Strike" is an introduction to a simulation played out at the Saban Center of the Brookings Institution in December, one which considered US and Iranian responses to an Iranian attack.

Nothing more here, in other words, than analysts testing out a scenario. Except that the timing of this article, placing it alongside the Sanger/Broad exaggeration of news, is far from subtle: if Iran is hiding uranium enrichment plants, couldn't that bring the bombers in from Tel Aviv?

All too predictably, Sanger and Broad's piece is being splashed across websites who support tougher Israeli and US action, possibly even a military strike, and are looking for "evidence" for their position: Fox News and The Jerusalem Post have circulated the piece. (To be fair, neither has added editorial comment elevating the language of fear and threat; I anticipate, however, that columnists will soon be jumping in.)

It's one thing for a series of commentators to bang the drum for an Israeli or even US strike on Iranian facilities --- almost all of those opinions are marginal in policy discussions in Washington. It's another for two reporters at the leading newspaper in America, under the guise of "news" rather than speculation or editorial comment, to offer support for that action.

That's not just poor journalism. That's dangerous journalism.

The Latest from Iran (26 March): Break Time

1935 GMT: We Will, We Will Rescue You. It's Hojatoleslam Kazem Seddiqi taking Tehran's Friday Prayers, and he's a man with a mission:

We should focus our efforts on freeing Americans from under the yoke of the two ruling parties in the United States. We want to save the West and spread morality in the world. We should concentrate our efforts on the international revolution and rescuing nations from the rule of arrogant powers.

Seddiqi also criticised President Obama for supporting Iran's "civil rights activists".

(So Seddiqi is denouncing the US Government's intervention in another country's affairs but calling on the Iranian Government to...intervene in another country's affair. Well, that seems logically consistent.)

Iran: “We are Going to Make the Future Better”
UPDATED Iran Appeal: Japan’s Deportation of Jamal Saberi
UPDATED Iran: The Controversy over Neda’s “Fiance”
The Latest from Iran (25 March): Lying Low

1930 GMT: Opening Communications. The United Nations' communications agency, the International Telecommunication Union, has called on Iran on Friday to end jamming of foreign satellite broadcasts.


The statement follows a similar announcement by the European Union earlier this week.

1920 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch.  A story to treat with caution, but interesting if true: Rah-e-Sabz is claiming, from a source close to Hashemi Rafsanjani, that the former President has said that people should continue their protests to insist that their demands are met. Rafsanjani allegedly pointed to the end of the Nowruz holidays on 12 Farvardin (next Thursday, 1 April) as an occasion for public demonstrations.

1320 GMT: Nowruz Visits. Mostafa Tajzadeh, former Deputy of Minister of Interior and senior member of the reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front, has used his temporary release to visit families of political prisoners who were not freed for the holidays. Amongst those seen by Tajzadeh and his wife were the families of Mohammad Nourizad, the filmmaker and former editor-in-chief of Kayhan, Davood Soleimani, member of Islamic Iran Participation Front, journalist Emadeddin Baghi.

1145 GMT: Iran Nukes No, Pakistan Nukes OK. How far will the US go to keep economic pressure on Tehran? This from Asia Times Online:

In 2008, after several years of negotiations, nuclear-armed India and the United States signed a civilian nuclear deal that in essence allowed India access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel from other countries even though it is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Pakistan, which like its neighbor India has a nuclear arsenal and is not a signatory to the NPT, has long been rankled by India's deal, wanting one of its own with the US. This topic featured high on the agenda of a top-level Pakistani delegation that held talks in Washington this week with senior US officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Washington, with some reservations, has been receptive to Pakistan's wishes, especially as Islamabad has emerged as a key strategic partner in the efforts to bring the war in Afghanistan to a conclusion, and in dealing with al-Qaeda and militancy in general in the region.

There will be a price: the US, according to analysts who spoke to Asia Times Online, wants Pakistan to walk away from the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project.

Last year, Islamabad and Tehran finalized a US$7.5 billion deal to transfer gas 2,775 kilometers from fields in Iran to terminals in Pakistan, and this month they signed an operational agreement on the project, despite US opposition.

The US, as it seeks to isolate Iran and impose sanctions on it over Tehran's nuclear program, is a vocal critic of the pipeline project, which was initially to have included a third leg going to India. India dropped its participation in the project, ostensibly over pricing disagreements; there is widespread belief that it did so to secure the nuclear deal with the US.

1040 GMT: The Bunker-Busting Bomb Iran Story. This is one that won't go away: Abdul-Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of Al Arabiya TV, writes in Asharq al-Awsat, "The perplexing question: Will a war be launched on Iran if the economic sanctions fail?"

The evidence is the revelation of the move of bunker-piercing bombs to a US base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Office. I can only repeat what I have posted in comments as this issue has percolated. This move would have been made irrespective of the current crisis with Iran: it is part of a "force projection" plan by the US military in the region, with a view not only to asserting an image of superiority vis-a-vis Iran but also in cases such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

0935 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. RAHANA reports that Mitra Aali, a graduate student at Sharif University was detained by the Ministry of Intelligence on 10 March and her whereabouts are now unknown.

RAHANA also reports on other political prisoners, including Behrooz Javid Tehrani, who are being held in solitary confinement and inhumane conditions at Evin Prison.

Aali, detained on two previous occasions since the June election, had been asked by the Ministry to come in for a "follow-up" and to receive her confiscated possessions.

0925 GMT: Remembering. A new video tells the story of Ramin Ramezani, who was killed during the 15 June demonstrations.

0750 GMT: Parliament v. President. Continued fighting over the Ahmadinejad subsidy reduction plan --- former Minister of Health Massoud Pezeshkian has said the President "has no excuse" and "must follow laws", a claim echoed by reformist MP Majid Nasirpour. Reformist Mostafa Kavakebian insists the decision about the usefulness of subsidy cuts is with the Majlis not Ahmadinejad.

0745 GMT: Economy Watch. Is this a sign of the President trying to tighten his control over Iran's energy industry? Rah-e-Sabz claims that Minister of Oil Massoud Mirkazemi has been replaced as head of the Government's "oil group" by First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi.

0710 GMT: With a week left in Iran's Nowruz holidays, political news continues to be slow.

On the international front, the Obama Administration seems to be moving away from its toughest proposed sanctions amidst renewed "5+1" talks on Iran's nuclear programme. Still, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has launched another warning about Tehran's military threat. Gates asserted that Iran's unmanned aerial vehicles --- "drones" --- could cause problems for the US in theatres like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The American pressure is still caught up in a complex international game, however. Russia continues with a dual approach, offering signals that it might support some further sanctions while reassuring Iran that the Bushehr nuclear plant will go on-line in 2010.

Fereshteh Ghazi prefers to concentrate on the threat inside Iran. She offers a summary article of the just-concluded Iranian Year 1388 as year for Evin Prison and interrogators.

Iran: An Opening Thought on the Disconnection in Washington

Still travelling this morning, with academic duties in Liverpool. I'm learning from the discussion on gender issues in a separate entry, and I'm thinking through my impressions of the view from Washington of the Iran crisis, not only from the NIAC conference but from other conversations and observations.

I'll try to write the analysis for Saturday, but my primary impression is of the disconnection between events inside Iran and how the best American analysts are approaching the situation. There can be a lengthy, engaging conversation about all the complexities of the post-election conflict --- about the quest for legitimacy and about the demands for rights, about the role of students, youth, and labour, about "leadership" and "grassroots" --- but all of that evaporates when the topic turns to "What Should the US Do?"

At that point, the two-clock metaphor takes it central place: the "nuclear clock" and the "democracy clock". Except no one pays attention to the democracy clock; it's all about the supposed ticking of the nuclear clock (even if, as one of the best US analysts noted, that clock is not real but illusory, given the limits on Iran's nuclear progress). And so once more, "Iran" is reduced to the nuclear matter, with geopolitical buttresses such as Israel, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and "Iranians" become the Supreme Leader, Ahmadinejad, and those who may or may not negotiate a deal with Washington.

Iran Interview: The State of Tehran's Nuclear Programme (Cirincione)

Joseph Cirincione, the President of the Ploughshares Fund on nuclear weapons policy and conflict, talks to Claudio Gallo of La Stampa:

GALLO: Is Iran really trying to build a nuclear weapon?

CIRINCIONE: There is no doubt that the Iranian regime is moving to acquire the technologies that would allow it to build a nuclear weapon. We do not know if the regime has reached a decision to actually build a weapon, however.



It may make strategic sense for Iran to stop at the edge, that is, to have the uranium enrichment capability, to have secretly done design work, and to have a missile capable of carrying a warhead, but not actually build a bomb. This would give it many of the advantages of a nuclear-armed state, without provoking an attack and perhaps delaying its neighbors from reacting with their own nuclear weapon programs.

GALLO: Do you think that stress over Iran's negotiating position may point to the fact that its uranium stockpiles are ending?

CIRINCIONE: Iran does not have enough known uranium reserves to fuel its current enrichment plant at Natanz for very long. It certainly does not have enough to fuel the 10 new enrichment plants it claims it will build. But the most likely reason why the government first accepted, then rejected the uranium swap is that the regime is in crisis. It cannot get the consensus it needs to either accept or completely reject the deal.

GALLO: The Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Ali Larijani, said recently that "based on terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the International Atomic Energy Agency has no right to urge Iran to suspend its nuclear activities". Why is the West saying that Larijani is not right?

CIRINCIONE: By its own admission, Iran misled the IAEA for over 15 years. It is clearly in violation of its obligation under the NPT to report its nuclear material activities and the existence of all its nuclear material facilities. The overwhelming majority of the nations that make up the IAEA board of governors and the UN Security Council found that Iran was and still is in violation of its treaty obligation. Under the terms of the treaty, the Security Council has the right --- in fact, it has the obligation --- to ask Iran to stop its nuclear activities until Iran's good faith can be restored. Few outside of Iran dispute this basic fact.

GALLO: In the last IAEA report, they quote an Iranian study about a nuclear missile warhead. It seems that the source of that report is the same stolen laptop that since 2005 appears at intervals on western newspapers: what do you think about this?

CIRINCIONE: This is the least clear claim. The documents on the laptop do seem to be the source of this claim. It still is not clear where the laptop came from. But Iran has yet to provide any clear answers to the IAEA. Iran has just refused to answer the IAEA's questions. This raises suspicions and seems to support the claim that Iran was doing such research.

GALLO: In May 2009, you were one of the experts, American and Russian, that wrote the report "Iran Nuclear and Missile Potential": it says that Iran, if it decides, may build a nuclear warhead in six to eight years. Is that conclusion still valid?

CIRINCIONE: Since we wrote the report, the time frame for Iran building a nuclear warhead has reduced somewhat. It could probably build a small nuclear bomb in 1-2 years. It would likely take an additional few years to test the device and perfect a warhead that could fit on one of its Shahab missiles. The main reason for the decreasing time frame is Iran's production of enough low-enriched uranium that could be reprocessed into high-enriched uranium for a bomb.

GALLO: And then there is the technical difficulty to build a working IRBM [Intermediate Ballistic Range Missile]....

CIRINCIONE: Iran now has short- and medium-range missiles that can travel as far at 2000 km. It is a major challenge to build a IRBM that could fly 3000-5500 km. This is currently beyond Iran's technical capability.

GALLO: Recently on The Huffington Post, the former Deputy Director General of the IAEA, Bruno Pellaud, wrote that Iran's regime is consciously provoking an attack against nuclear facilities. Do you think it is possible?

CIRINCIONE: The regime is in turmoil. It is not clear how long it can survive. The Revolution Guard would like to change this dynamic. It is possible that the Iranian Revolution Guard is trying to provoke Israel into striking Iran. This would allow them to rally the Iranian public in defense of the nation.

GALLO: President Ahmadinejad said that Israel will attack Iran in spring or summer: do you think that Israel could attack without the American green light?

CIRINCIONE: Possibly, but very unlikely. The US military does not want to start a third war in the Middle East. JCS [Joint Chiefs of Staff] Chairman [Admiral Mike] Mullen said this week that such an attack would have "unintended consequences".

GALLO: Russia's Chief of the Army Staff, General Nikolai Makarov, warned that an American attack on Iran now, when the US is bogged down in two wars, might well lead to the collapse of the United States. Is this an old-style Russian "provokazia" [provocation] or it makes some sense?

CIRINCIONE: Not the collapse, but great turmoil, and it may unite the Muslim world against the US. Many Muslim governments would like to see the US strike Iran, but the Muslim publics would likely be enraged.