Alarmist editorializing about Iran, its regional influence, and its nuclear energy program have picked up considerably in the past few weeks. Despite the latest IAEA report this past Spring which revealed no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, a hefty Sy Hersh article confirming that all 16 American intelligence agencies still stand by their 2007 assessment that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, and the potential for a large-scale U.S. withdrawal from Iraq at the end of the year, career fear-mongers have been hard at work trying to raise the Iranian threat level from mild khaki to frantic crimson.
An opinion piece published last night in the Wall Street Journal is a perfect example of the heightened hysteria. The article, entitled “America’s Intelligence Denial on Iran“, was written by former CIA agent Fred Fleitz, a neoconservative Bomb Iran-er who served as John Bolton’s State Department chief of staff and is currently a columnist for the right-wing outlet Newsmax.
Fleitz is intent on discrediting the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which has repeatedly found that Iran’s nuclear program is, at best, totally benign and, at worst, not an imminent threat to anyone. He leads with this:
Mounting evidence over the last few years has convinced most experts that Iran has an active program to develop and construct nuclear weapons. Amazingly, however, these experts do not include the leaders of the U.S. intelligence community. They are unwilling to conduct a proper assessment of the Iranian nuclear issue – and so they remain at variance with the Obama White House, U.S. allies, and even the United Nations.
Fleitz writes that, “according to the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control,” Iran currently has enough “low-enriched uranium” for “four nuclear weapons if enriched to weapons grade” and repeats the propaganda line about “an item recently posted to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps website [which] mused about the day after an Iranian nuclear test (saying, in a kind of taunt, that it would be a ‘normal day’).” Fleitz claims that the “message marked the first time any official Iranian comment suggested the country’s nuclear program is not entirely peaceful.”
Beyond demonstrating a severe lack of understanding about what the IAEA has actually reported and his willful omission of the huge difference between low-enriched uranium and weapons grade material, Fleitz tips his hand by relying on the over-hyped “Nuclear Test” post on the Iranian Gerdab website last month for his nuclear scare propaganda.
Fleitz then writes that the latest NIE assessment is just as “politicized” and “poorly written” as its 2007 predecessor and similarly downplays the “true account of the Iranian threat” due to what Fleitz claims is the U.S. intelligence community’s apparent aversion to providing “provocative analytic conclusions, and any analysis that could be used to justify military action against rogue states like Iran [sic].” He accuses the 2011 NIE of “poorly structured arguments and cavalier manipulation of intelligence”, all the while boasting of his own objections, which he says were routinely ignored and rebuffed by the report’s supervisors. He lays blame on what he determines is the NIE’s reliance on “former senior intelligence officers, liberal professors and scholars from liberal think tanks.”
He concludes:
It is unacceptable that Iran is on the brink of testing a nuclear weapon while our intelligence analysts continue to deny that an Iranian nuclear weapons program exists. One can’t underestimate the dangers posed to our country by a U.S. intelligence community that is unable to provide timely and objective analysis of such major threats to U.S. national security – or to make appropriate adjustments when it is proven wrong.
If U.S. intelligence agencies cannot or will not get this one right, what else are they missing?
Reading this, one might be forgiven for wondering why, rather than merely attacking the credentials of NIE sources, Fleitz doesn’t introduce any evidence for his declaration that “Iran is on the brink of testing a nuclear weapon.” Oh right, never mind.
This sort of “analysis” from Fleitz is far from unexpected. Back in August 2006, Fleitz – then a House Intelligence Committee staffer – was the primary author of a Congressional report entitled, “Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States“, which served as a veritable catalog of false assertions about Iran’s nuclear program and, just like his Wall Street Journal piece, assailed the U.S. intelligence community for not sufficiently fear-mongering about the so-called Iranian threat. Among other exaggerations and outright lies, the report accused Iran of “enriching uranium to weapons grade” and stated that the IAEA had removed a senior safeguards inspector from Iran for “allegedly raising concerns about Iranian deception regarding its nuclear program and concluding that the purpose of Iran’s nuclear programme is to construct weapons” and for “not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy baring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.”
The report contained so many misrepresentations and false allegations regarding the Iranian nuclear program, in fact, that the IAEA’s Director of External Relations and Policy Coordination Vilmos Cserveny wrote a letter to the Chairman of House Committee, Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), challenging the report’s “incorrect” assertions and criticizing it for promoting “erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated information.”
Additionally, Cserveny described Fleitz’s accusations about the safeguards inspector as “outrageous and dishonest” and noted that “Iran has accepted the designation of more than 200 Agency safeguards inspectors, which number is similar to that accepted by the majority of non-nuclear-weapon States that have concluded safeguards agreements pursuant to the NPT.”
It appears that, five years later, Fleitz still chooses fantasy over facts.
Meanwhile, in the pages of the Washington Post, deputy editorial editor and Likudnik ideologue Jackson Diehl has picked up on the amplified push to blame the Iranian government for the recent deaths of American soldiers occupying Iraq. In an opinion piece published earlier this week, he writes, “The larger question is whether Iraq will be forced by a full U.S. pullout to become an Iranian satellite, a development that would undo a huge and painful investment of American blood and treasure and deal a potentially devastating blow to the larger U.S. position in the Middle East.”
Apparently, Arabs and Muslims are only truly liberated when under the influence of the United States.
Diehl believes that an Iraqi government that is bullied into allowing U.S. troops to continue occupying their country beyond the December 31, 2011 deadline would be “making the right choice.” If there is an American withdrawal, however, Diehl is worried about the potential consequences. He claims (citing a Fox News report) that an “offensive [is] already underway by Iranian-sponsored militias [which] shows that Tehran is ready to fight.” He writes that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, “like U.S. commanders in the Middle East, understands very well that without an American military presence, Iraq will be unable to defend itself against its Persian neighbor” and laments that, “without U.S. help, Iraqi forces cannot easily counter” Iranian-backed militias since “Iraq’s conventional forces are no match for those of Iran.”
Of course, what Diehl leaves out – beyond the fact that the evidence linking the Iranian government to recent resistance attacks in Iraq is sketchy at best – is that foreign occupation is what most people and non-U.S.-aligned governments in the region are most offended by, not alleged increasing Iranian influence. Yet, the horror of an Iraq allied with Iran is ever-present in the neoconservative community. Diehl even quotes career militarist Frederick Kagan of the neocon flagship, the American Enterprise Institute, as warning in a recent report that “[i]f Maliki allows the United States to leave Iraq, he is effectively declaring his intent to fall in line with Tehran’s wishes, to subordinate Iraq’s foreign policy to the Persians, and possibly, to consolidate his own power as a sort of modern Persian satrap in Baghdad.”
Oh dear, the Persians!
Where are Aristagoras, Leonides and Themistocles when you need them?! It would be unsurprising to assume that Kagan’s neocon classicist father Donald is proud of his son’s ridiculous historical analogy.
To his moderate credit, Diehl does also present a slightly alternate perspective, one that naturally views Iran as a spooky menace (no other representation of the Islamic Republic is allowed in the mainstream press, of course), but that doesn’t necessarily see it as a hegemonic threat of Xerxian proportions. He reports that Antony Blinken, a senior aide to Vice President Joe Biden, resists the notion that Iran is capable of wielding such devious influence over Iraq, even without a massive U.S. military presence. “The danger of Iranian hegemony in Iraq,” Diehl writes, “is overstated by analysts such as Kagan,” according to Blinken.
Diehl closes by lamenting the recent departure of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, whom he describes as “the only Obama administration official who has publicly made the case for a continued U.S. military presence.” In a recent speech, Diehl recalls, Gates said that it would send “a powerful signal to the region that we’re not leaving, that we will continue to play a part,” adding, “I think it would be reassuring to the Gulf states. I think it would not be reassuring to Iran, and that’s a good thing.”
What Diehl omits is that Gates (who, lest we forget, was first a Bush administration official) was actually speaking to the American Enterprise Institute when making these comments and that, much to the dismay of its many war-mongering members, has been credited by many as having single-handedly prevented an American attack on Iran.
The specter of a nuclear-armed and hegemonic Iran is still the bread-and-butter of Beltway Middle East reportage and analysis. Consequently, the fever-pitched fear-mongering never stops, despite what the facts are.
Instead of wasing your time on this angry blog that recycles material from several years ago and contains links that don’t work, check out this response to the Fleitz op-ed on National Review online from former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra. NOte especially the comments on Hoekstra’s piece.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272279/time-fix-intelligence-estimates-pete-hoekstra
Yes don’t waste your time reading about arguments that refute baseless, unproven allegations of a right-wing extremist, NeoConservative, on the payroll of AIPAC.
Instead I have this piece from Peter Hoekstra who was Fred Fleitz’s boss (so must be completely independent source) which basically regurgitates the same allegations without any proof.
It’s interesting, BZ, that you would tell readers not to read Shirazi’s article by saying it is an “angry blog that recycles material from several years ago”, instead of pointing to any error in fact or logic in the article, and refer them to an article that fully endorses the ignorant and dishonest assertions in the WSJ piece by Fleitz.
Definition of IGNORANCE
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness
BZ-
Forgive me if I misunderstand the above comment, but is research and contextual information considered “recycled material”?
Also, which links don’t work? I’m happy to fix whatever turns out to be a dead link. (Just as a note, the links are in blue; the green double underlined words are automatically generated “infolinks” that have nothing to do with the content on the post.)
More importantly, though, is the suggestion that the opinions and beliefs of Pete Hoekstra should be taken seriously (distilled down to three sloppy and generic paragraphs on this issue, posted at – of all places – The National Review. Forgive me for laughing).
Hoekstra is a man who embodies the racist and discriminatory right-wing. He is staunchly anti-gay rights, anti-reproductive rights, and anti-civil rights. Unsurprisingly, he’s massively pro-corporate interests and anti-labor rights. He’s anti-gun control regulation and pro-illegal wiretapping and spying. He voted “no” on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. He’s also opposed to the separation of church and state. The list goes on and on.
This is a man with a clear agenda and war-mongering is one of his favorite pastimes. He’s voted “no” on supporting democratic institutions in Pakistan, attempted to manipulate the UN by threatening to restrict US funding, and is unquestionably in the pocket of the AIPAC, uncritically supporting every criminal action of Israel.
As referred in the above article, Hoekstra is the one responsible for the ridiculous Congressional report written by Fleitz.
If the “blog” sounds “angry”, it is only because I am baffled that there are people who continue to take warmongering ideologues like Hoekstra and Fleitz seriously.
So you’re claiming that because Congressman Hoekstra disagrees with you on gay rights and abortion that his foreign policy views have no value? Can’t argue with that logic.
That’s not at all what I wrote. Please review.
You might want to review what you wrote. For example you wrote in response to my comment:
“Hoekstra is a man who embodies the racist and discriminatory right-wing. He is staunchly anti-gay rights, anti-reproductive rights, and anti-civil rights. Unsurprisingly, he’s massively pro-corporate interests and anti-labor rights. He’s anti-gun control regulation and pro-illegal wiretapping and spying. He voted “no” on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. He’s also opposed to the separation of church and state. The list goes on and on.”
I repeat: you somehow think the views Hoekstra has on gays and abortion has something to do with his views on foreign policy. After someone points this out, you deny it.
You attacked the accuracy and truthfulness of Fleitz’s written work but can’t honestly answer criticisms of your own work. It seems you live in a glass house.
No. I addresses Hoekstra’s adherence to a far-right ideology, which includes constant warmongering and AIPAC-approved propaganda about Iran.
As I stated clearly, what I found hilarious was your “suggestion that the opinions and beliefs of Pete Hoekstra should be taken seriously,” and then proceded to explain why I thought that.
Sadly, it seems that this discussion has taken a strange turn to the irrelevant, and I will take responsibility for leading us down that track and away from the issue at hand by focusing more on Hoekstra (whom I couldn’t possibly have less respect for and whom I believe to be a career liar and a despicable person). So, for that, my apologies.
You suggested readers here should ignore my article for various reasons, and instead read three sloppy paragraphs of regurgitated nonsense from Hoekstra himself, the very person responsible for the report I addressed above, which was totally discredited by the IAEA itself.
Both Hoekstra and his former employee Fleitz base their judgment of the 2007 NIE (which has been reaffirmed since, notably this year, as reported by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker) on their opinion that it was “heavily politicized,” yet the only evidence they give for this assessment is that some of the chief analysts who wrote the report were “liberals”. Now, if that’s not an air-tight case, I don’t know what is!
More importantly, the Hoekstra article you suggested people read is a simple rehash of Fleitz’s own article. The entire second paragraph of Hoekstra’s post (a whopping 1/3 of his tedious tome) is dedicated to summarizing and praising the Fleitz piece. Why would reading that have any bearing on my article? It provides no new or additional information, nothing to bolster Fleitz’s claims, nor a single refutation of anything I myself wrote in response to Fleitz. So, again, why would this be a worthwhile substitution to reading my analysis?
Note that Hoekstra suggests that future NIE reports be reviewed before publication by a group of “outside” experts from “Washington think tanks” and should “exclude former intelligence officers.” Yes, indeed, how better than to de-politicize the NIE than to enlist Beltway think tankers to review government assessments!?
The mere suggestion is ludicrous, especially in light of what one of Fleitz’s main concerns with the NIE actually is: that its findings were skewed based on the analysis of “scholars from liberal think tanks.” So, wait, Fleitz is worried about “liberal” think tankers ruining the NIE while Hoekstra advocates for “balanced sets of experts drawn from Washington think tanks” to review the NIE.
Does this mean that, for every Flynt Leverett, there’s one Michael Ledeen? For every Matt Duss, there’s a Reuel Gerecht? Is that what Hoekstra really calls for? Or is he calling for think tankers that just agree with him to deliver sufficiently alarmist rhetoric about Iran’s IAEA-monitored nuclear program? Who judges “balance”, in any case? Hoekstra? Kucinich? Me? You?
Instead of trying to get “balanced” assessments, shouldn’t we all be calling for “factual” and “evidence-based” analysis? With this in mind, you have yet to point to a single factual error I’ve made in my analysis, just as Hoekstra and Fleitz can not identify one aspect of the NIE report they see as problematic.
Clearly, the problem is that it is not nearly as shrill or hysterical about the Iranian nuclear program as they wish it to be.
Mr Shirazi
Anyone who has lived in Iran and has been in touch with Iranian leaders – senior, mid-level or even very junior ones – knows how duplicious they are. Knowing something from experience and proving it are two different realms. Just because hard evidence does not exist for something does not mean one should not be cautious. You lock your house everyday, without any evidence that there is any threat to it. You do it by deducing this from other evidence or facts. The same applies to many other situations. Anyone who has lived in Iran knows the lies and propaganda that the regime disseminates and promotes. Your propaganda pieces are well known and exposed in serious circles.Your mission mimics that of the Islamic Republic of Iran: defend it at any cost. Shameful.
Jamshid –
Thank you for your “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” lecture. It’s also fun hearing about known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. I look forward to your future exploration of unknown knowns.
Snarkiness aside, though, I am eager to read these rebuttals to what you call my “propaganda pieces” which are “well known and exposed in serious circles.”
Please forward them along.
Cheers.
It’s hilarious, Jamshid, that you call Nima’s superb articles “propaganda pieces” while acknowledging that “hard evidence does not exist” that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE anyone?
Nice article. Iran poses absolutely no nuclear threat to the USA, and those who insist on fearmongering on this issue only have an Israeli agenda in mind. It is Israel and USA that pose an existential threat to Iran and many other countries with their illegal stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
Anyone who is knowledgeable about Iran or even has shallow knowledge of Iran knows that JAMSHID is a liar who spreads Zionist propaganda around. Stupid line such as “Iranian leaders – senior, mid-level or even very junior ones – knows how duplicious they are.” can be said about US government, Israel terrorist and racist state, Britain, France who waged another zionist war against Libya based on LIES like IRAQ and Afghanistan. Your stupid lies are typical of a zionist terrorist who designed and carried out 9/11 and framed Muslims to carry out ‘regime change’ to establish ‘greater Israel’ which is known as “the New Middle East”, but we are determined to force them all out of region.
You don’t mention that for the past 32 years Iran is under the destabilization project of zionism which is implemented by the Jewish Lobby through their proxy US. Iran is under illigal sanctions and economic strangulation. It is remarkable that Iran still is resisting. You are not Iranian, you are a traitor and an enemy of Iran. Remove your Iranian Names AT ONCE and chose another name which shows you true face. Don’t try to impose as a traitor Iranian next time.
Iranian government is determined to bring the Middle East under influence of countries in the region, not the tribe of idiot Zionists like you.
My final words.
You do not have to be an analyst or an “expert” with a title to learn about the world. All it takes is honesty and an open mind. A visit to Iran, conversations with Iranians about their government and its policies, the general conditions of life as they encounter normal issues everyday, and what they are struggling with are good indicators of how good or bad their government is. Talking to Iranians in situations where they do not feel they have to defend their government (out of fear of reprisals) brings forth the fundamental point that many in Iran – certainly not all – feel that their government, and in fact the whole regime, is pursuing policies that are not addressing the fundamental issues that face people and that “the system” is more concerned about staying in power, projecting a popular image, portraying itself as a champion, etc. I am not even talking about the intellectuals in Iran, many of whom believe that the problem lies far beyond this or that government. They point to culture, religion, arrogance, etc. today, people in Iran cannot freely practice even their age-old traditions and one example is the Chaharshanbeh Souri festivities held for the Nowruz celebrations. Public debate on any serious issues, even if historical, cannot be undertaken. For example, can anyone publicly discuss the role that Iranian officials may have played in provoking Saddam Hussein to attack Iran? What about the treatment of the Mujahedin organization (without being defensive of this cult)? What about the treatment of women? The Kurds? The Baluchis? The Lors?
While a discussion of the 8-year Iran-Iraq war is unacceptable, discussing the Holocaust is portrayed as a relevant and important issue by the regime! Who can doubt that the Iranian leaders for years hid their nuclear program – even if we assume that it was for peaceful purposes – fromt he IAEA and the outside world? They are still hiding it and when you talk to Iranian officials they bring up Machiavellian justifications. Can Iranians openly and publicy say that they listen to foreign news broadcasts without concern for chastisement from authorities? Everyone knows many do listen to foreign broadcasts, but they have to keep that hidden from others. Is that a good society, a good model, a government that promotes human values and openness? The probem is not just Ahmadinejad or his clique. It is a more fundamental issue, and Iran is not alone in its unattractive political structure and policies. Persians have a historic pride that interferes with objectivity, even though the pride this has a legitimate basis.
These issues and contradictions are so serious inside Iran today that insiders of the regime themselves acknowlege them and are genuinely concerned about an implosion that is approaching. One only has to read what Iranian leaders are saying about each other in the censored media.
The Shah too dreamed of the “Great Civilization”, i.e., Iran: unfortunately for the dreamers, these dreams are greater than reality and they do not promise usefulness to a larger body of human beings.
Whew, that’s a pretty long post given that it doesn’t actually say anything relevant about the article. I would like to remind readers of Jamshid’s earlier acknowledgment that “hard evidence does not exist” that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
By writing “Despite the latest IAEA report this past Spring which revealed no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program” the author tries to project the impression that the IAEA report is in fact not concerned about Iran’s nuclear program or that it is supportive of Iran’s activities. This is misinformation and a distortion. The spirit of the report is completely the opposite to what the author claims. Furthermore, he does not provide a link to the IAEA report either and his assertions are not supported by fact. Here is a direct quote from the IAEA Director General’s report to the Board of Governors dated May 24, 2011:
Section K. Summary, Para 40
“Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation … the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”
If you want evidence of the existence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, then you need to wait for the mushroom cloud over the horizon. If that convinces you, then let’s pray that the event causing the mushroom will take place on Iran’s soil, and not somewhere else.
Responsible players in the world are concerned and Iran’s disregard raises alarms.
observer –
Thank you for reading. I apologize for not including a link to the IAEA report in this article. Anyone can read it here [PDF].
I have written extensively on this (and other) IAEA reports and my intention is certainly not to obfuscate the findings of the IAEA.
The paragraph you note is a perfect example of how exaggeration and innuendo are spread as alarmist fear-mongering. The statement is repeated in numerous IAEA reports and always refers to non-nuclear states which have CSAs (comprehensive safeguards agreements) in place, but have not implemented the AP (Additional Protocol).
For example, the IAEA Annual Report for 2009 [PDF] (published in mid-2010), which summarizes all IAEA findings for the past year, states:
You might think that this reference is made with regard to only a select few nations, but you’d be wrong. The IAEA states that “for 73 States with CSAs in force but without APs,” the Agency was able to “conclude only that the declared nuclear material remained in peaceful activities.”
As such, the paragraph you reference above is boilerplate phraseology present in nearly every IAEA report for nations with a CSA but no AP in place.
As it routinely does, the IAEA – in its latest report, the one for refer to – reaffirmed that it “continues to conduct verification activities under Iran’s Safeguards Agreement” and “continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities.”
I have also previously written on the “alleged studies” and “possible military dimensions” discussed in IAEA reports and have no interest in rehashing that at length here. If you wish to explore that aspect of the Iran nuclear issue, feel free to read what I’ve previously written (the links above are a good start) and either comment on those posts or email me directly. There is no need for me to cut and paste things I’ve already written into this comment feed. I hope you agree.
Unfortunately for you, you betray your own bias, ignorance, and inhumanity at the end of your comment.
You write, in pure Condoleezza Rice-speak (should that be Condoleese?), that the only “evidence of the existence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran” will appear in the form of a “mushroom cloud.” I will refrain from actually writing the words that leap to mind in response to this absurd statement, but will merely say this: You should be ashamed of yourself.
You then write that, were a nuclear explosion to occur, you hope it happens in Iran, presumably so that the millions of inevitable casualties would be Iranian citizens. Disgusting.
You conclude by claiming that “responsible players in the world are concerned” but fail to elaborate on who these players actually are. I assume you believe that a handfull of Western countries, along with Israel, should be categorized as “responsible,” while the rest of the world – namely entire continents of nations which are not worried by Iran’s nuclear energy program – should be ignored or considered to be irrelevant.
Your misunderstanding of the issues at hand is clear and your repetition of unsophisticated talking points is embarrassing. When all else fails, you resort to appalling fear-mongering and mushroom-cloudism, revealing yourself as both a bigot and a fool.
Unless you decide to engage in a conversation based on facts rather than mere propaganda, any subsequent comment you post here will either be ignored by me or met with a similar level of derision and disdain.
Comparing a country with its neighbors is meaningless. You compare a country’s situation with its own potentials and capabilities. The condition of Iran’s women should not be compared to those in the neighboring countries or those in the West, but with the level of awareness of the Iranian society, including its women.
To Nima. Thank you for your constructive criticism, minus the bickering and childish name-calling. By responsible players I certainly did not mean Western countries, but whoever immediately had that in his mind is instructive of the ingrained premises, fears and biases. I think people want to read open-minded and unbiased pieces, not those written in defense of something or the other. Every political system has its positive and negative elements. But where is the balance and main essence? By players I meant governments and international organizations such as Iranian neighbors, regional states and other countries are concerned. Iran itself expressed its concern when Pakistan and India went nuclear-weapon. All peace-loving people are concerned. Iran’s regime has been the cause of this concern by talking about the Islamic Gulf, calling Bahrain part of Iran, name-calling the leaders of neighboring countries and calling on their populations to overthrow their own governments, the elimination of states, etc. Even if such remarks are naive, they are disturbing. On another point, if you think IAEA reports are boilerplate and therefore not to be taken seriously, then why do you use them in your arguments? If they lack credibility, don’t use them. Your arguments should not need an “authority” to have credibility. They should stand on their own foundations and premises. People are not stupid, they know how organizations work and how statements, declarations and communiqués are drafted and agreed upon. Is it not strange that you pick and chose which paragraphs or documents are right and which are wrong? This is not research or an impartial observation; it is a method of finding cherry picking to justify and rationalize a point of view.
I found the quote that you present and would include the full paragraph – just a few more lines – for the reader to make his/her own conclusion, rather than … “While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion fo declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.” This is in para 41. The report is talking about Iran’s lack of cooperation and not implementing the Additional Protocol, making it impossible for the Agency to report that provide assurance about the undeclared nuclear matierial and activities in Iran.
On the mushroom point, I agree that was in poor taste.
There’s plenty here to address, but I will make one quick point now and return later on to tackle the rest:
I never said that IAEA reports are boilerplate. I noted that the paragraph related to the inability of the IAEA to verify undeclared activities without the implementation fo the Additional Protocol was boilerplate, as it appears in all reports related to non-nuclear states with only CSAs in place. Furthermore, Iran’s history with the IAEA, EU-3, P5+1, and its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol for almost two years, is extremely relevant when discussing why IAEA reports say what they do.
It’s not about picking and choosing what to quote and what not to quote or determining which parts are “right” and which are “wrong.” With reference to Iran “not providing the necessary cooperation”, I would urge observer to read what I (and others, like Professor Muhammad Sahimi, who writes often Tehran Bureau and Antiwar) have already written about this rather than rehashing it here.
In short, Iran refuses to abide by the dictates of UNSC resolution calling for it to suspend its uranium enrichment as these resolution themselves do not stand up to legal scrutiny (again, this has been addressed in numerous forums – Eric Brill, for example, has written extensively on the subject) insofar as the referral of Iran’s nuclear dossier to the UNSC was itself an overreach of the IAEA’s authority and the demand for a cessation of a peaceful nuclear program is an abrogation of Iran’s “inalienable” right to pursue nuclear energy, including enriching uranium, as affirmed (not “granted”, since an “inalienable” right does not need to be bestowed, it is inherent) by the NPT.
The allegations of a nuclear program come from agents of the MEK (this is not a spooky rumor, it is a documented fact) and have never been showed in full to either the IAEA or Iran in order to be scrutinized and addressed once and for all. Again, I and others (like Cyrus Safdari over at IranAffairs.com) have written about this at length.
Your comments on what Iran has done to “raise alarms” of “responsible players” (did you really call the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the US-backed despotic Persian Gulf states “responsible players”?) will be left for another day.
(I should point out, though, that it seems like you subtly reference the “wipe Israel off the map” nonsense, which certainly doesn’t help your appeal to solid information and truthful discourse. Just sayin’.)
Also, did you refer to the Persian Gulf as the “Islamic Gulf”?
Some Iranian leaders in the beginning of the 1979 revolution said that the Persian Gulf should be renamed the Islamic Gulf and there were others like Khalkhali who said that Bahrain belongs to Iran and should be re-taken. There were others who immediately after the fall of the monarchy said that they did not recognize the 1975 demarcation agreement that the Shah had signed with Saddam through Algeria (not to be confused with the Algerian Declarations that created the arbitration tribunal and freed the US embassy staff) and the Iranian military had stopped the demarcation work because of this. The list of such provocations is long, although one can attribute this to an inexperienced regime. There were even incidents when ayatollah Montazeri’s son disarmed Tehran’s airport guards who tried to stop him from sending armed men to Libya.
Regarding the names that you quote to support your viewpoint, I think you will agree that citing others does not add legitimacy or credibility to a position or a viewpoint: all it shows is that there are others who think similarly. Anyone can find written texts to support their position. Similarly, saying that I have read this or written extensively about this or that, again does not by itself add credibility to the opinion or the view. Of course we can disagree forever, but my point is that there is legitimate concern over what Iran is doing, that Iran itself has played a role in exacerbating this fear, and that being concerned does not make these individuals, governments or whatever bigots, Zionists, imperialists, etc. Opinions should be examined for what they are, and not with labels and attacks, which unfortunately at least I see a lot of around opinion pieces on Iran. In fact many are very angry and at times even vulgar in their responses (certainly yours are not vulgar). Unfortunately I feel the forest gets lost for the trees in “he said this” and “it wrote that” analysis.
The “allegation” that Iran is or could be pursuing a nuclear weapons program does not come from the Mojahedin. They too may be promoting this idea or having this belief, but I believe there is plenty of evidence by UN inspectors, IAEA reports, defector interviews, etc to suggest or conclude this. The very fact that the IAEA repeatedly reports – as does its director general – (as indicated in the very IAEA reports that you cite) that Iran is not fully providing answers to questions that the agency has raised in itself raises the question why. No serious thinker would unquestionably accept what the Mojahedin, or any person for that matter, say.
There is a larger perspective and I think this is where we disagree: I believe the nature of the regime in Tehran is troublesome. In other words, the determinant elements that go into decision-making are inconsiderate and intolerant of others (who could be other people, other governments, groups etc), of deviance, plurality, etc. Let’s leave it there.
Sadly, it seems you have misunderstood my point (though I thought I made myself clear).
Citing my own writing and that of others is not meant to lending any sort of unimpeachable credibility, authority, legitimacy, or undeniability to any of my statements. As I repeated numerous times, my point was that I was not going to repeat myself here in this forum by cutting and pasting things I’ve already written and which have been addressed by others.
Naturally, one can find any sort of supporting analysis for their point of view. My point is that this is not a matter of point of view; there are facts and evidence and there are outstanding issues, all of which do not exist in vacuum. There is plenty of history and context to unpack. My point was never “well, he says this, so I’m right.” Please review my previous statements to verify this if you wish.
I kept writing that I did not feel the need to repeat myself, when I have already addressed many of these topics. I even suggested you “comment on those posts or email me directly” if you read them so that we may continue the discussion, rather than attempt to address everything here in the comment section of this one article. I really though that was clear – I’m sorry it didn’t come across that way.
Also, writing that “there is legitimate concern” over Iran’s actions does not mean that the concerns are well-grounded. There were “concerns” over Saddam Hussein’s WMD that he didn’t have too. That is but one example. This is not to say that anything the Iranian government should be accepted at face value. I urge you to read some of the IAEA reports in full and to read some of Iran‘s responses. Seek out independent analyses and determine which ones you find compelling and reasonable and which ones you don’t.
You write that there is “plenty of evidence” suggesting that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Actually there isn’t. I’m honestly not trying to be contrarian just for the sake of it. The “evidence” at this point literally comes from the so-called “Alleged Studies” and “Laptop of Death” which were delivered to the US via Mossad by the MEK (again, this is not some wild conspiracy theory about a spooky terrorist cult and its imperial and Zionist affiliates – please check the record). These allegations include supposed studies regarding “Green Salt”, “Highly Explosive Testing” and “Re-Entry Vehicle”. These documents have yet to be authenticated by the IAEA and have never been shown to Iran for evaluation. Yet, these are the supposed “concerns” you speak of. If you have found or read about other serious allegations, please pass them along.
Otherwise, all you are basing your judgment on is that you don’t like the Iranian government and don’t trust them. While you are certainly entitled to that opinion (I’m sure we would be in agreement about a great many things), it has no bearing of what the evidence is or what Iran has been or is currently capable of. The argument essentially could essentially boil down to “well, certain government officials are clerics with beards, so, chances are there’s something to be suspicious about.” (Yes, I’m aware that reductive, but you get my point.)
It’s been fun. Cheers.
Thank you. I am not angry at all, but certainly disappointed about the direction of events regarding Iran. On clerics, I will say that when I lived in Iran, some of the most humane and principled people I knew were clerics. This does not mean they are the only good human beings or that all clerics, with or without beards, are great human beings. Like any group of people, they have admiring members and decadent ones, selfish ones and selfless ones.
‘Responsible players in the world are concerned’ about what?
About the fact that they have thousands of evil nuclear weapons coming out of their ears?
Or the fact that their banks have robbed the world blind?
Who exactly decided that these fools are ‘responsible’? Or do you mean ‘responsible’ for all the nuclear proliferation, bank robberies and illegal invasions? Or for war crimes?
The lethal mix of arrogance and ignorance such comments betray is incredible. Who’s responsible for it?!
When talking about Iran, spirits are always high and blood runs hot.
BTW, what happened to Khawaji and its Balochistan penchant?
I have lived most of my life in Iran and have no partisan affiliation. Iran is not a paradise on earth for sure but it is a much more democratic country than almost all its neighbors, including its central Asian neighbors, eastern neighbors and its Arab neighbors. For example compare women’s situation in Iran and Saudi Arabia! Are they comparable at all? Saudi women are at least 100 years behind Iranian women in terms of rights and social achievements but no one raises any question about that. Isn;t it this blatantly duplicitous!
Nima Shirazi’s articles are well-documented, well-argumented and meticulous!If you have anything to say, you should tackle his arguments rather than attacking his person! That would create a more civil environment for debate!