IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano’s latest report [entitled “Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran”] contains certain formulas that appear even more important than the rest of the text. Especially considering the way these formulas had been interpreted by international media long before the report was actually submitted, including headlines describing Iran as getting prepared to launch nuclear arms production facilities and/or experimenting with A-bomb technologies.
Official Tehran quickly responded. That same night, November 9, 2011, its IAEA envoy posed simple questions to those present during the meeting: (a) Had the IAEA received any documents testifying to the military aspect of Iran’s nuclear development program? (b) Was the IAEA in possession of any incriminating evidence after its inspections?
The Iranian envoy said later all the answers were in the negative. Even as the media were tapping their sources, seeking information about the IAEA report, Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi ridiculed [the IAEA] potential nuclear weapons technology formulas, saying anyone, ranging from experts on nuclear physics to university lecturers in the field could fit into this A-bomb-making category.
Previously, the Iranian delegation at the UN Disarmament Committee refuted all allegations by a Canadian committee member, to the effect that there were up to 20 percent enrichment technologies, stressing that not a single country had responded to Iran’s request for supplies of enriched uranium to produce isotopes required for the treatment of cancer. The fact remains that Iran manufactures and exports reactor-made pain-killing capsules for this category of patients (a single injection has a six-month effect but costs 300 dollars, whereas a US analog available in Ukraine costs over 3,000 dollars). It is also true that this Iranian product isn’t certified in Ukraine.
Russia responded sharply to Yukiya Amano’s report, saying there is a glaring lack of condemning evidence, just a bunch of allegations and a juggling of facts and figures. A year and one half back, Russia voted for the UN Security Council’s sanctions against Iran. This sudden change of heart is proof of Russia acting in accordance with the Moscow-Washington reload deal, in response to Washington allowing Moscow to have more room in the post-Soviet space, including Ukraine.
The latest IAEA report relies on anonymous intelligence sources (although analysts refer to Israel, the US, France, the UK, and Germany), some black container spotted by a satellite, computer games, and detonators. This “evidence” has been compared to the ill-famous 2003 Iraq dossier when Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared to have a far more incriminating evidence (e.g., nuclear warheads allegedly stored on the premises of Saddam Hussein’s estate, along with mobile labs in the desert). In the end, Powell had to admit there was actually no such evidence.
Yukiya Amano’s latest report isn’t the point. The point is its consequences and the way the international media sees it. November 14, 2011, The Washington Post carried Joby Warrick’s “Russian scientist Vyacheslav Danilenko’s aid to Iran offers peek at nuclear program,” to the effect that Danilenko may have well “enabled Iran to leapfrog over technical hurdles that otherwise could have taken years to overcome…” Fortunately, there were skeptics who did their own investigation and learned that Danilenko was actually an expert on detonation nanodiamonds, and that this disinformation found its way into Amano’s report thanks to David Albright, founder and president of the non-profit Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, D.C. My gut feeling is that much of the incriminating evidence contained in this IAEA report will collapse like a house of cards, considering that the authors apparently counted on the first media response. A month ago, Washington boasted of thwarting the Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot, referring to two American Iranians, allegedly affiliated to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, believed to have tried to hire Mexicans to assassinate the Saudi Arabian envoy. Following the euphoria of their arrest, a number of unconformable questions were posed, along with unconformable media coverages. One of the suspects turned out to be an alcoholic, naturalized several months ago (after having spent 20 years on US soil), in return for a deal with US clandestine agencies. The second one, according to Interpol, was a member of a Mujahideen organization. This man had spent years fighting the Iranian regime from Iraq. Tehran demanded evidence and when none was provided, an official apology was in order. President Hugo Chaves of Venezuela joked that tomorrow the States would say his country was also involved in the attempt. An overstatement? Doesn’t seem so, considering that the Republican presidential candidate, Michele Bachmann, declared at the time that the Lebanese Hezbollah (Americans still believe it to be financed and equipped by Iran) was building bases in Cuba. As the story about the alleged attempt on the Saudi Arabian envoy faded into the background, with other breaking news coming up, there emerged further “proof” of Iran’s subversive activities: five Bahraini nationals arrested on charges of suspected involvement in a conspiracy aimed at the blowing up of the Saudi Arabian embassy (considering that Bahrain hosts the US Fifth Fleet’s base). The big question is: Why Saudi officials as targets? Outwardly everything stands to logic, with Iran and Saudi Arabia having long been at odds, struggling to get this region under control. Here one ought to consider the religious factor: Tehran is for an Islamic republic, which spells Shiites; Saudi Arabia is on the Sunnite side. All things considered, the attempted assassination took place at the right time and in the right place, after Turki Al Faisal (a member of the royal family) warned Washington against vetoing Palestine’s independence at the UN, saying America would otherwise lose an important ally, and that Riyadh would then revise its policy in the region. Washington hated to see another friendly handshake between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and King Abdullah (as was the case during the 2008 Gulf Summit, when, among other things, Iran was allowed to carry out peaceful nuclear studies and assured that no forceful measures would be taken against that country). US Vice President Joe Biden recently declared that Iran’s isolation and measures to force Tehran to change its stance were on the agenda.
Getting back to Danilenko as an alleged creator of Iran’s A-bomb, Albright (who had conveyed this data to the IAEA) eventually admitted that he had received it from Israel’s clandestine agencies. Interesting, considering that Israel places such issues on top of the agenda. Perhaps not coincidentally Israel’s ranking officials began discussing the possibility of dealing a retaliatory military blow to Iran just as this classified data was found leaking. They were bluffing, of course, considering the disastrous consequences for both sides, with Tel Aviv’s civilian and military infrastructures in the first place. Their threats were meant for their allies, so fresh sanctions against Tehran would be tabled. There were also carefully orchestrated leaks to the media. During last week’s G20 summit in Cannes, French President Nicolas Sarkozy told US President Barack Obama that Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “a liar,” with the two heads of state having a private conversation, both believing the nearby recording machines of journalists were switched off. They weren’t and Paris later, by way of apology, promised Tel Aviv support of further anti-Iran sanctions.
Yaakov Kedmi, ex-head of Nativ (officially Lishkat Hakesher, or the Liaison Bureau, Israel’s liaison organization that maintained contact with Jews living in the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War, encouraging the aliyah immigration to Israel), told Rossiyskaya gazeta, October 27, 2011, that Israel has nuclear armaments and that its government is prepared to use these weapons of mass destruction in case of clear and present danger (Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty, just as it has never admitted IAEA inspectors). One is reminded of the Dutch weekly Elsevier’s interview with the noted Israeli scientist, Martin Levi van Creveld (September 2003). He said: “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force… We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”
I would like to ask Amano-san: “Did you read this interview?”
