Tuesday
Nov172009
The Bomb, The Bomb: Distorting the Latest Report on Iran's Nuclear Programme
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 9:43
Iran Document: The International Atomic Energy Agency Report on Nuclear Facilities
The Latest from Iran (17 November): An Obama-Ahmadinejad Alliance?
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
Unsurprisingly, David Sanger and William Broad in The New York Times publish an article today which continues the overblown and misleading presentation (see yesterday's updates) of the IAEA report on Iran's nuclear facilities. The IAEA's wrist-slap of Iran--- for not reporting the 2nd uranium enrichment facility at Fordoo near Qom before September 2009 and for claiming that the plant was begin in 2007, not 2006 --- is converted into a "strong suspicion...that the country was concealing other nuclear facilities".
Sanger and Broad invoke The Bomb Next Year spectre and repeat the distortion, fed by leaking sources who oppose talks with Iran, "The site had been built to house about 3,000 centrifuges, enough to produce enough material for one or two nuclear weapons a year. But that is too small to be useful in the production of fuel for civilian nuclear power, which is what Iran insists is the intended purpose of the site." (A decent analysis would note the IAEA's assessment that Fordoo is intended as a back-up to the main enrichment facility at Natanz, given the threat of aerial attack, rather than as a full-scale plant.)
The distortion is extended by converting leaking sources are also converted into official judgements: "Both International Atomic Energy Agency officials and American and European diplomats and nuclear experts have argued that the existence of the hidden facility at Qum would make little sense unless there was a network of related covert facilities to feed it with raw nuclear fuel." Again, nothing in the report supports this speculation.
It is also notable that Sanger and Broad, to prop up their shaky claims, ignore most of the report. For example, it might be considered significant not only that the IAEA found no evidence of illegal enrichment at Fordoo and, indeed, at Natanz. There is also the striking note that less than half of Natanz's centrifuges are operational, which may indicate that Iran is suffering from a shortage of uranium for its programmes (and, thus, may have added incentive to reach an agreement on enrichment).
If we have the time --- and if the controversy continues to be whipped up --- we may draw on contributors and sources to put out a full critique of the report. But I suspect, given that the Obama Administration still wants a bargain with Tehran, that these exaggerations of the IAEA assessment.
The Latest from Iran (17 November): An Obama-Ahmadinejad Alliance?
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
Unsurprisingly, David Sanger and William Broad in The New York Times publish an article today which continues the overblown and misleading presentation (see yesterday's updates) of the IAEA report on Iran's nuclear facilities. The IAEA's wrist-slap of Iran--- for not reporting the 2nd uranium enrichment facility at Fordoo near Qom before September 2009 and for claiming that the plant was begin in 2007, not 2006 --- is converted into a "strong suspicion...that the country was concealing other nuclear facilities".Sanger and Broad invoke The Bomb Next Year spectre and repeat the distortion, fed by leaking sources who oppose talks with Iran, "The site had been built to house about 3,000 centrifuges, enough to produce enough material for one or two nuclear weapons a year. But that is too small to be useful in the production of fuel for civilian nuclear power, which is what Iran insists is the intended purpose of the site." (A decent analysis would note the IAEA's assessment that Fordoo is intended as a back-up to the main enrichment facility at Natanz, given the threat of aerial attack, rather than as a full-scale plant.)
The distortion is extended by converting leaking sources are also converted into official judgements: "Both International Atomic Energy Agency officials and American and European diplomats and nuclear experts have argued that the existence of the hidden facility at Qum would make little sense unless there was a network of related covert facilities to feed it with raw nuclear fuel." Again, nothing in the report supports this speculation.
It is also notable that Sanger and Broad, to prop up their shaky claims, ignore most of the report. For example, it might be considered significant not only that the IAEA found no evidence of illegal enrichment at Fordoo and, indeed, at Natanz. There is also the striking note that less than half of Natanz's centrifuges are operational, which may indicate that Iran is suffering from a shortage of uranium for its programmes (and, thus, may have added incentive to reach an agreement on enrichment).
If we have the time --- and if the controversy continues to be whipped up --- we may draw on contributors and sources to put out a full critique of the report. But I suspect, given that the Obama Administration still wants a bargain with Tehran, that these exaggerations of the IAEA assessment.
Reader Comments (1)
Do you ever post your critiques of Sanger and co., or others at major newspapers whose reporting you find lacking, as comments under their articles? It's great that EA readers have the benefit of your analysis, but they're the ones (and their readers) who are most in need of your acute analysis and broader perspective.