Rattling Sabers & Beating Drums: Fear-mongering over nuclear Iran reaches a fever-pitch

on 38 Comments

“Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”

- Joseph C. Wilson IV, The New York Times, July 6, 2003

“Its failings notwithstanding, there is much to be said in favor of journalism in that by giving us the opinion of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.”

- Oscar Wilde

NOTE: It has been over ten months since I wrote, “The Phantom Menace: Fantasies, Falsehoods, and Fear-Mongering about Iran’s Nuclear Program“, a timeline of false U.S., Israeli, and European assertions regarding the supposed inevitability and immediacy of a nuclear-armed Iran, hysterical allegations that have been made repeatedly for the past thirty years. Whenever new predictions and claims about Iran’s nuclear program are released, I have added updates to my original piece. To read all past updates, click here. Culled from the past few months, here are some the latest.

On June 17, 2011, U.S.News & World Report published a lengthy article by Purdue professor Louis René Beres and retired Air Force Gen. John T. Chain with the title “Israel’s Options for Dealing With a Nuclear Iran.” The writers claim that “Iran is closing in rapidly on full membership in the ‘nuclear club’” and that “probably in the next two years, such membership can be conclusively confirmed.” They then outline the various ways Israel could protect itself from an Iranian assault, completely ignoring the fact that Iran has never threatened Israel with attack, rather it’s the other way around. 

On August 22, 2011, speaking at a luncheon at the Oklahoma City National Memorial and Museum, Republican Senator and second-ranking member on the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee James Inhofe declared, “We know – and it is not even classified for me to tell you today – that Iran will have the capability of delivering a weapon of mass destruction to western Europe and the eastern United States by 2015. I see that as the most imminent threat to this country right now. So that is a problem we are going to have deal with.”

On August 28, 2011, Reuters, in an article quoting a senior Israeli defense official as saying that “Israel would not be able to halt Iran’s reported quest for atomic weapons with a single strike,” also reported, “Recent Israeli estimates do not show Iran developing nuclear weapons before 2015.”

On September 6, 2011, the editors of The Washington Post hysterically claimed, “Iran has taken two more steps toward producing a nuclear weapon,” before completely misrepresenting a new IAEA report on the Iranian nuclear program. The editorial says Iran has “begun to use a new, more advanced centrifuge to enrich uranium, which could allow it to produce bomb-grade material in a much shorter time period, should it choose to do so” and is “creating a stockpile for which Tehran has no plausible legitimate use.” It warns that, despite ongoing illegal actions (though not using those terms, of course) like industrial sabotage and assassinations, “the danger that Iran will become a nuclear power is growing, not diminishing,” before declaring that “the grim reality is that Iran’s leaders have not been deterred from their goal of producing a weapon, and the project is making steady progress.”

The Post also noted a study [PDF] by the Bipartisan Policy Center (a think tank established by U.S. senators) warned of Iran acquiring the ability to produce enough highly-enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in a mere 62 days, “a timeline that could fall to 12 days by the end of 2012.”

Writing in The New RepublicIran hysteric Greg Jones estimated ”Iran can produce enough HEU for a nuclear weapon in about eight weeks from the time it decided to do so,” a timeframe that would “shrink to only about four weeks by the end of next year, as Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles and enrichment capacity continue to increase.” Jones concluded, “The international community has no choice but to already treat the Islamic Republic as a de facto nuclear state.”

On September 14, 2011, Reuters reported that British Ambassador Simon Smith had told the IAEA’s 35-nation governing board in Vienna, “The absence of a plausible economic or commercial rationale for so many of the nuclear activities now being carried out in Iran, and the growing body of evidence of a military dimension to these activities, give grounds for grave concern about Iran’s intentions.”

The same day, Jim Garamone of American Forces Press Service wrote that Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen told a gathering at the University of Miami, “Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons and wants regional hegemony in the Middle East.”

On September 16, 2011, The New York Times published an editorial which warned that “Iran is still enriching uranium and refusing to come clean about its nuclear program.” The editorial claimed, Iran has “greatly increased production of uranium to 20 percent purity instead of the 3.5 percent purity normally used to fuel nuclear power plants” which represents “a significant step closer to the 90 percent threshold required to make nuclear weapons fuel.” The authors suggest the Obama administration should seek “even tougher punishments” than “sanctions and inducements” in order to get “Tehran’s attention.”

Barbara Slavin, writing for The Atlantic Council the same day in an article ominously entitled “As Iran Edges Closer to Nukes,” states that although “Iran has not exactly been sprinting toward a bomb…the Iranian program – which Washington helped start in 1957 – is finally getting close to providing the wherewithal to make nuclear weapons.” Slavin writes that Iran has amassed “enough material, if further enriched, for four or five nuclear weapons.”

The following day, on September 17, 2011, Reuters reporter Frederik Dahl wrote of U.S. fears that “Iran and North Korea might covertly trade know-how, material or technology that could be put to developing atomic bombs.” The report quotes Mark Hibbs of theCarnegie Endowment for International Peace as saying, “Were this traffic to be confirmed, that would deepen the suspicion that Iran is involved in nuclear activities which are clandestine and military in nature.”

Speaking on panel on September 19, 2011, Mark Fitzpatrick, Director of Nonproliferation and Disarmament at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, opined that Iran “won’t have [a nuclear weapon] tomorrow or next week or next month or a year from now,” but noted that once Iran produces enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon, his assessment holds that it would take Iran “six months to weaponize.”

Also on September 19, 2011, Reuters reported that, during an IAEA meeting in Vienna, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu claimed, “Iran has continued to engage in a long-standing pattern of denial, deceit and evasion, in violation of its (nuclear) non-proliferation obligations,” continuing, “Expanding, and moving underground, its enrichment to this level marks a significant provocation and brings Iran still closer to having the capability to produce weapons grade uranium.” French Industry Minister Eric Besson was also quoted as telling the meeting that Iran’s nuclear program “poses an unacceptable threat to the regime of non-proliferation and to regional stability,” while the head of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission, Shaul Chorev told member states, “Israel has no doubt that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.”

On September 21, 2011, in advance of Barack Obama’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly, war-mongering walrus John Bolton lamented in The National Interest that Iran has “marched inexorably forward with its nuclear weapons program.”

Addressing the UN three days later, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeated his most dire of warnings (which he’s been making since at least 1995) about an Iranian nuclear weapon. “The greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction,” he said, apparently unaware of the obvious irony of the leader of a self-described “Jewish State” claiming to speak on behalf of all Jewish people on the planet and colonizing Palestine on the pretense of a Biblical land deed and divine decree which has stockpiled upwards of 400 nuclear weapons yet refuses to official acknowledge their existence and preventing international monitoring and supervision. He continued, “The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons,” and asked, “Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?”

David Albright of D.C. think tank Institute for Science and International Security and longtime Iran alarmist, was quoted in The Australian on September 26, 2011 as saying, “We believe if Iran broke out now they could have a bomb in six months,” continuing, “They’ve done this right in front of our faces.”

Reuters published an extensive analysis entitled “How close is Iran to the bomb?” on September 28, 2011 which noted, “Either Iran could build a nuclear bomb in a matter of months or it is unlikely to get such a weapon any time soon — depending on which Western expert you talk to.” In the article, Frederik Dahl writes that “Western-based analysts generally agree with their governments that Tehran is developing technology that could be used to make a bomb, but they disagree about just how close it is to success,” citing various estimates from Greg Jones’ two month timeline to Shannon Kile, a senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, who said, “I just don’t see how you can credibly say they are going to be eight weeks away or even 18 months away.” The report states Mark Fitzpatrick, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), estimates “Iran could make a nuclear weapon in less than two years’ time.” 

On October 3, 2011, writing in the Jerusalem Post, Yaakov Katz insisted, “As Iran continues its development of a nuclear weapon, Israel is growing more concerned that the Islamic Republic will embrace a policy of ambiguity, similar to the policy upheld in Israel regarding its own alleged nuclear capabilities.” He added, “General assessments are that if it so decides, it would take Iran just a number of months for it to enrich a sufficient quantity of uranium to over the 90% that would be required for one nuclear device.”

On October 4, 2011, Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported former Mossad chief Meir Dagan had told the Council for Peace and Security that “Iran’s nuclear program was still far from the point of no return.”

The same day, new U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who was visiting Israel at the time, said during a press conference alongside his Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak, “We are very concerned [about Iran] and the best approach for dealing with this threat is for all of us to make it clear to them that they cannot proceed on the path that they are on. We will work together to do whatever is necessary to make sure that they do not represent a threat to this region and it depends on countries working together.”

On October 16, 2011, a New York Times report by David Sanger and Lander stated, “President Obama is pressing United Nations nuclear inspectors to release classified intelligence information showing that Iran is designing and experimenting with nuclear weapons technology.”

Reza Kahlili, a former CIA spy claiming to have intimate knowledge of the Iranian nuclear program, wrote in The Washington Times on October 27, 2011, “The pressure the United States and the West is bringing to bear on Iran to keep it from acquiring nuclear weapons is all for naught. Not only does the Islamic Republic already have nuclear weapons from the old Soviet Union, but it has enough enriched uranium for more. What’s worse, it has a delivery system.”

Kahlili claimed that Mathew Nasuti, a former U.S. Air Force captain and State Department adviser, attended a March 2008 briefing in which a “Middle East expert” said “it was ‘common knowledge’ that Iran had acquired tactical nuclear weapons from one or more of the former Soviet republics” and also that “Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, an experienced intelligence officer and recipient of a Bronze Star, told me that his sources say Iran has two workable nuclear warheads.” He also writes that Iran has “enough enriched uranium for six nuclear bombs,” before calling for a military strike on Iran “before it’s too late.”

In a bizarre article, published in Ha’aretz on October 28, 2011, Louis René Beres, Leon Edney, and Thomas G. McInerney advocate for a coordinated, unprovoked military attack on Iran as an act of preemptive self-defense from “the genuinely existential risks posed in the 21st century by a nuclear Iran.” The authors write that although “Israel is the country at greatest risk from Iranian nuclear weapons,” the U.S. “is presently the only country that has the operational capability to undertake a successful preemptive mission to remove Iran’s covert and illegal nuclear weapons program.” The spooky conclusion is simple: “[I]f there is not an American defensive strike on Iran…[there will] be a fully nuclear Iran, led by irrational Shiite clerics.” (Purdue professor Beres chaired Project Daniel in Israel, Edney was vice chief of U.S. naval operations, a NATO supreme allied commander and commander-in-chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command, and McInerney served U.S. Air Force vice chief of staff, deputy chief of staff for operations and intelligence and vice commander-in-chief at the U.S. Air Force headquarters in Europe.)

The same day, the English-language website of Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth reportedthat Defense Ministry Director of Policy and Political-Military Affairs Amos Gilad told students at Ashkelon College, “At the moment, there is no immediate nuclear threat, but there is definitely a great deal of motivation and determination for it,” before noting, “Today the status is that they are at the starting point – they have uranium, they have the knowledge but they don’t create (missiles) because of media publicity which is not initiated by them.” Gilad declared, “The whole world is against the Iranians, the sanctions are effective, but it doesn’t change Iran’s strategic direction or their motivation. Iran is determined to obtain nuclear weapons and that is a major threat to Israel. If they achieve their goal it would be major game changer,” as it would upset the current “balance of power” in the region.

During an October 30, 2011 interview with Christiane Amanpour on ABC’s This Week, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann claimed, “Iran has also stated they would be willing to use a nuclear weapon against the United States of America,” despite the fact that fewer things could be further from the truth.

On October 31, 2011, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu again warned of an ongoing Iranian nuclear weapons program and told the Knesset, “A nuclear Iran poses a heavy threat to the entire world – and to Israel in particular.”

A report by Ha’aretz on Netanyahu’s push for an Israeli assault on Iran published on November 2, 2011, stated, “Western intelligence officials agree that Iran is forging ahead with its nuclear program. Intelligence services now say it will take Iran two or three years to get the bomb once it decides to (it hasn’t made the decision yet ).”

The same day, Damien McElroy and Alex Spillius of The Daily Telegraph claimed, “Iran is on course to build nuclear weapons, according to evidence compiled by United Nations inspectors.” A new IAEA report, due out this week, “is likely to take the Middle East a step closer to a nuclear arms race,” the report stated. The article, entitled “Iran making nuclear arms,” included a quote from an unnamed Western diplomat declaring that the IAEA’s upcoming assessment “makes an inescapable case that Iran has ambitions to militarise the uranium it has been enriching at its production facilities.”

On November 3, 2011, Richard Norton-Taylor wrote in The Guardian, “The suggestion is that there is a ‘window’ now that would enable Israel on its own to strike Iran’s nuclear sites. Next year, the ‘window’ would be left open to the US (and the UK) before Iran’s nuclear weapons reached the point of no return.”

Writing in Ha’aretz the same day, Ari Shavit waxed philosophically, “For the past decade it has been clear that we are facing an Iranian deadline. Time after time the deadline has been put off. But it is real and it is imminent. Unless an international miracle, or an interior-Iranian miracle takes place, we will reach the crossroads.” Wondering whether Israel should “launch a military offensive or…emerge from nuclear ambiguity,” Shavit worries, “If Israel is late to act in Iran, the implications could be critical to our survival. A nuclear bomb in the hands of fanatic Muslims could change our life entirely and could shorten our life span.”

On November 5, 2011, a BBC report revealed that the IAEA “is planning to reveal evidence that Iran has been working secretly to develop a nuclear weapons capability, diplomats say,” and that “the evidence is said to include intelligence that Iran made computer models of a nuclear warhead” along with “satellite images of what the IAEA believes is a large steel container used for high-explosives tests related to nuclear arms.”

The Washington Post‘s Joby Warrick and Thomas Erdbrink wrote on November 6, 2011, “Intelligence provided to U.N. nuclear officials shows that Iran’s government has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon, receiving assistance from foreign scientists to overcome key technical hurdles, according to Western diplomats and nuclear experts briefed on the findings.” Warrick writes that according to ISIS’s David Albright, “in 2003, Iranian scientists worked concurrently across multiple disciplines to obtain key skills needed to make and test a nuclear weapon that could fit inside the country’s long-range missiles.” Furthermore, during a PowerPoint presentation, “Albright said IAEA officials, based on the totality of the evidence given to them, have concluded that Iran ‘has sufficient information to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device.’”

Also on November 6, 2011, Israeli President Shimon Peres told AFP that “an attack on Iran” by Israel and other countries was “more and more likely,” and that “The intelligence services of the different countries that are keeping an eye on (Iran) are worried and putting pressure on their leaders to warn that Iran is ready to obtain the nuclear weapon.”

A report from Ha’aretz‘s Yossi Melman stated, “Iran is pursuing its nuclear weapons program at the Parchin military base about 30 kilometers from Tehran, diplomatic sources in Vienna say.” The article continued, “According to recent leaks, Iran has carried out experiments in the final, critical stage for developing nuclear weapons – weaponization. This includes explosions and computer simulations of explosions. The Associated Press and other media outlets have reported that satellite photos of the site reveal a bus-sized container for conducting experiments.”

The same day, November 6, 2011, The New York Times‘s resident fear-monger David Sanger published a lengthy article entitled “America’s Deadly Dynamics With Iran” in which he claimed that, despite the recent covert war against the Islamic Republic conducted via computer viruses and murder of Iranian scientists, “The Iranians are digging their plants deeper underground, and enriching uranium at purities that will make it easier to race for a bomb. When Barack Obama was sworn into office, they had enough fuel on hand to produce a single weapon; today, by the I.A.E.A.’s own inventory, they have enough for at least four.” Additionally, he quotes an unnamed “American official” as saying, “And there are reasons to wonder whether, in the end, this shadow war is simply going to delay the inevitable: an Iranian bomb or, more likely, an Iranian capability to assemble a fairly crude weapon in a matter of weeks or months.” In what one can only hope is a ridiculously sloppy typo, Sanger also claims that the director of Iran’s atomic energy program Fereydoon Abbasi, who survived an Israeli assassination attempt late last year, “travels the world offering assurances that Iran’s interest in nuclear weapons is peaceful.”

The following day, November 7, 2011, Sanger was back, this time with fellow alarmist William Broad, to report, “Details leaking out about an imminent report by United Nations weapons inspectors suggest they have the strongest evidence yet that Iran has worked in recent years on a kind of sophisticated explosives technology that is primarily used to trigger a nuclear weapon, according to Western officials who have been briefed on the intelligence,” before adding, “But the case is hardly conclusive.”

With so much hysteria and hype, the IAEA report to be released this week will surely be anti-climactic. Iran has long stated that these allegations of nuclear weapons work are fabricated, a claim bolstered by the fact that the United States – which supplied the IAEA with the supposedly damning documents – has long refused to show original copies to either the IAEA or Iran. 

Fever-pitched reports of an imminent Israeli attack have been surfacing in the press for decades. And, while both NATO and Russia have declared its opposition to a military strike on Iran, recent reports still raise the specter of a coordinated assault by Israel, the USBritain, and France, supported by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf client states.

As the U.S. Congress follows AIPAC’s lead to scuttle any chance for diplomacy in an ongoing effort to urge the Obama administration to attack Iran and a reported 41% of Israelis supportive of an assault by its own military, and the endless rhetoric declaringIran an irrationalgenocidalsuicidal martyr state fueled by “extreme fundamentalism,” bellicose aggressor and “existential threat,” it is instructive to recall – amidst the din of Western saber-rattling and beating Israel war drums - what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told an Al Jazeera correspondent during an interview in Tehran less than a month ago:

“We will never enter any war against the U.S. or against any other country. This is our policy…We have never attacked anybody. Why should we do that? Why should we start a war?”

Why indeed?

Nima Shirazi blogs at Wide Asleep in America. You can follow him on Twitter at @WideAsleepNima.

About Nima Shirazi

Nima Shirazi is co-editor of the Iran, Iraq and Turkey pages for the online magazine Muftah. His political analysis can be found on his blog, WideAsleepinAmerica.com, where this post first appeared. Follow him on Twitter @WideAsleepNima.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

38 Responses

  1. dumvitaestspesest
    November 8, 2011, 10:48 am

    We are in the mercy of a very dangerous psychopaths.
    What is the most frustrating is this feeling of powerlessness.

  2. Charon
    November 8, 2011, 10:57 am

    We are witnessing deja vu. There were rational anti-war voices then and thankfully there are even more now. Not that it matters. If it is a war they seek, then it will happen. Whether it’s a unilateral Israeli-led strike or a Western/US one, we the middle class will pay dearly in inflation and insanely high (likely unaffordable) gas prices. That is a given. Worse things are possible including attacking US ME bases and Saudi oil fields. Nuclear exchanges. WWIII.

    The media is driving this. Haaretz has a headline that mentions ‘Western experts’…. What kind of ‘experts’? The ones from 2003? Those ‘radical Islam’ experts who report Internet hoaxes as fact? How did Iran go from being years away from a weapon (if they were even making one) to months? And in league with Russia, North Korea, and Pakistan? The latter who have been in these people’s sights for ages? This is fabricated evidence. You don’t need to be an expert. You just need common sense and recall the last decade’s events

    • seafoid
      November 8, 2011, 11:09 am

      The US is finished as global superpower. They can’t even beat the Taliban in Afghanistan. So they may attack Iran but they won’t win the long game. And Israel will go down with them unless there is a palace coup and some grown ups take over.

      The movement of history is not with Israel. After 50 years of Pax Americana the region is waking up and Israel has zero brownie points and zero credible regional alliances.

      • dumvitaestspesest
        November 8, 2011, 11:14 am

        Maybe somebody does not want a strong , independent US anymore??
        The same like strong, independent Europe is not needed anymore?
        People, who live like those in Sudan, struggling for daily survival are very easy to govern.
        If you have nothing to put in your mouth, all other worldy problems become irrevelant.

  3. MRW
    November 8, 2011, 11:03 am

    Nima, your first timeline was superb. Thanks for this commendable update. These pieces of yours will stand as living history, accurately created, and properly sourced. Thanks.

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      November 8, 2011, 1:53 pm

      I agree, Nima. This is and will remain extremely useful in the future for building a case against those who promoted what may turn out to be the most insane act in modern history.

      The blood was no sooner dry on the streets of Baghdad than the same Zionist operatives in Washington who orchestrated that war began beating the drums to make Tehran next..

      • Clif Brown
        November 8, 2011, 8:02 pm

        From all I’ve read of the run-up to the Iraq War, Iran was the preferred target of the Zionists but Cheney and Rumsfeld held out for Iraq. Iraq it was, with Iran still left on the list. The United States has been hijacked.

    • MRW
      November 8, 2011, 3:40 pm


      You need to add this article to your timeline, and copy it before it disappears later:

      October 25, 2007, Haaretz
      Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel
      link to haaretz.com

  4. dahoit
    November 8, 2011, 11:12 am

    And how much do you want to bet that the majority of these “experts” were all educated in the Poison Ivy League devil factory?Twits twit while America seethes(the hoi polloi who don’t count ).Oy.

  5. lysias
    November 8, 2011, 1:11 pm

    Those large steel containers used for high-explosives tests look about as bogus as Iraq’s aluminum tubes were as evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Turns out they have another obvious use, for the production of nanodiamonds for industrial purposes.

    The Declining Credibility of the IAEA.

    On “Nuclear Iran” Allegations: Nanodiamonds Ain’t Nuclear Bombs.

    • Charon
      November 8, 2011, 1:53 pm

      Lol! The media is a joke. There are good journalists, they just don’t write about this stuff or else they’d be unemployed. The media is a criminal element. Not only does the ill-informed public believe it is true, Congress will push for war based on this bogus disinfo. Aluminum tubes all over again and the same people propigating this nonsense.

      Maybe the De Beers are concerned they are making more than just nano diamonds

    • MRW
      November 8, 2011, 3:54 pm

      Unbelievable. Great catch, lysias. I heard the IAEA/Nuclear weapons scientist/Big Bad Iran schtick on NPR this AM, and snorted to myself.

    • annie
      November 8, 2011, 4:18 pm

      In a post yesterday at Moon of Alabama, b informs us that there is a likely very different use of the conventional explosive technology and the steel chamber where the explosions are carried out. A key to unraveling this mystery was an examination of the area of expertise for the Russian scientist cited as the source of the explosive technology in the Washington Post’s “scoop” of the expected content of the IAEA report. From the Moon of Alabama post:

      Dr. Vyacheslav Danilenko is a well known Ukrainian (“former Soviet”) scientist. But his specialties are not “weapon” or “nuclear” science, indeed there seems to be nothing to support that claim, but the production of nanodiamonds via detonations (ppt). According to the history of detonation nanodiamonds he describes in chapter 10 of Ultrananocrystalline Diamond – Synthesis, Properties, and Applications (pdf) he has worked in that field since 1962, invented new methods used in the process and is related with Alit, an Ukrainian company that produces nanodiamonds.


      Some years ago Iran launched a big Nano Technology Initiative which includes Iranian research on detonation nanodiamonds (pdf). Iran is officially planing to produce them on industrial scale. It holds regular international conferences and invites experts on nanotechnology from all over the world. It is quite likely that famous international scientists in that field, like Dr. Danilenko, have been invited, gave talks in Iran and cooperate with its scientists.

      Producing nanodiamonds via detonations uses large confined containers with water cooling, for which Danilenko seems to have a patent. The Ukrainian company he works with, Alit, shows such a detonation chamber on its webpage as does the picture above from the French-German nano-research company ISL. The detonation nanodiamond explanation thereby also fits with another allegation from the IAEA report:


      b is awesome

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 8, 2011, 4:42 pm

      Oh, come on!!! They’re clearly mobile WMD labs. Clearly!!! Colin Powell told us so. Didn’t he?

  6. seanmcbride
    November 8, 2011, 3:00 pm

    Wonderful research! Meat and potatoes that stick to the ribs. Names, dates and quotes all nicely nailed down. Imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth on the horizon if this neocon crew actually gets its way with Iran — it will make the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars look like picnics. And they will own the disaster entirely.

    • MRW
      November 8, 2011, 3:56 pm

      They will also own the anti-semitism that will result.

      • RoHa
        November 8, 2011, 9:09 pm

        “They will also own the anti-semitism that will result.”

        No they won’t. It will be our fault, as usual. We’re just genetically predisposed that way. (The gene is on the Y chromosome.)

  7. Jeffrey Blankfort
    November 8, 2011, 4:52 pm

    This just in 20 minutes ago from the “Bi-Partisan Policy Center” which, from the get-go appeared to be another front group pushing the Zionist effort to get the US to attack Iran. In the intro to a series of reports devoted to the subject going back to 9/19.2008, just before the last presidential election, it makes its recommendation unmistakably clear: Bomb, bomb. bomb, Iran!:

    “In this, our third report on this most serious challenge, we elucidate the outcomes we are likely to face if we do not now act decisively to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We recognize the difficulties we face in addressing this threat. Any solution requires imagination, resolve and risks. But compared with what will happen when time runs out, the choice cannot be clearer.”http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/projects/iran-initiative

  8. American
    November 8, 2011, 9:23 pm

    The sooner Iran gets a bomb the better…..there’s nothing like MAD to make people think twice. Russia should just go ahead and deliver some of these babies to Iran post haste. link to news.bbc.co.uk

    UN’s Iran Report May Contain ‘Political Dishonesty,’ Russia Says
    November 08, 2011, 3:22 PM EST

    (Bloomberg) — Russia said it suspects “political dishonesty” in a United Nations report on Iran’s nuclear program, whose contents may hinder negotiations with the Persian Gulf country.

    Russia suspects the authors of some of the comments in the report of “political dishonesty and pursuing goals that have nothing to do with the task of eliminating the well-known concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program,” according to an e- mailed statement sent by the Moscow-based ministry before the report was released late yesterday.
    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters in Moscow Nov. 7 that an Israeli military strike against Iran would be a “serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences.”

    Russia won’t accept any pressure on Iran that aims to topple the government, a senior Foreign Ministry official told reporters last week, asking not to be named in line with government policy.

    “I think you need to exhale, calm down and continue a constructive discussion of all issues of the Mideast agenda — Iran’s nuclear program and all other issues — and not threaten the use of force in this situation ,” Medvedev said yesterday. “It may end up in a big war and this will be a catastrophe for the Mideast.”

    Lavrov said a Russian offer to resolve the dispute by lifting sanctions in stages in return for Iranian cooperation on inspections was “still on the negotiating table,” adding that he hoped “no actions will be taken that could destroy these chances.”
    link to businessweek.com

    Russia and China warn America against Iran strike as tensions rise ahead of damning atomic agency report
    link to dailymail.co.uk

  9. American
    November 8, 2011, 9:33 pm

    Here’s another bit for you Nima..

    ““In the time that remains, we must urge the other nations of the world to act, and tell them that it’s time to stand behind the promise that was made to us, to fulfill their responsibility, whether that means serious sanctions or whether it means a military operation,” Peres said.”

    link to businessweek.com nov 8

    I don’t remember anyone promising the Jews to blow up other countries for them. Anyway, want to kown what is wrong with the zionist?…that’s what’s wrong with them…thinking the world owes them anything they want…even to killing on command for the Jews.

  10. Richard Witty
    November 8, 2011, 10:18 pm

    The thesis that Iran is an angel, innocent, only harrangued will fall on deaf ears and rightly.

    A more realistic portrayal of Iran (maintaining enormous aggressive proxy hostage-oriented military on Israel’s border directed only at civilians) would be helpful.

    With that acknowledgment, there is still a very valid argument for not militarily attacking Iran at all or even lightly rather than all-out, by either Israel, US, Arab League.

    But, to the extent that you declare “Iran is definitively NOT developing nuclear weapons”, or “Iran has never aggressed on anyone in a thousand years” then your analysis is hopelessly thin, irrelevant, war-mongering in its negligence.

    • James North
      November 8, 2011, 10:22 pm

      Richard Witty said, ‘Look at this!

      there is still a very valid argument for not militarily attacking Iran at all or even lightly

      ‘Instead of the mellow ex-hippie I pose as, I’m actually a military expert! Let’s attack Iran “lightly!”
      (‘How many dead Iranians is “lightly?” How many Iranian children?’)

      • Chaos4700
        November 8, 2011, 10:23 pm

        I’m guessing more than Mavi Marmara, less than Dahiya.

        • Donald
          November 8, 2011, 11:05 pm

          He will defend the right of Israel to launch an attack, but may concede (if the civilian death toll is high enough) that some of it might have been excessive, but that’s it. Under no circumstances will he admit that any actual war crimes were committed. By Israel, that is. If Hezbollah launches some rockets into northern Israel that will be “literally horrid”, war crimes beyond any doubt.

        • Jeffrey Blankfort
          November 10, 2011, 11:16 pm

          I would like to interrogate Goldberg about his service in Lebanon in 1982 in which he and his Israeli comrades in arms were directly responsible for the loss of 18,000 civilian lives and indirectly, for the 2000 who were murdered in Sabra and Shatila by Israel’s Falange allies while his soldier buddies guarded the camp entrances to make sure the Palestinian residents of the camp could not escape. They also generously provided the killers with flares–they had already given them the arms– so they could continue their slaughter and thoughtfully provided them with meals because murdering defenseless civilians, the Israeli had already learned, is exhausting work.

          In 1983, before I went into Lebanon and into the camps, I interviewed Israeli reservists who had participated in the invasion and after witnessing the atrocities committed by their fellow Israelis, Goldberg’s good buddies, they refused to return to the war zone and joined Yesh G’vul, the reservist group that was the first to oppose the war and which grew to 2000 members.

          The night before the war broke, the founders of Yesh G’vul (Hebrew for “there is a limit” as well as “there is a border,”) were meeting to plan resisting serving in the West Bank and Gaza but with the invasion they turned their attention on Lebanon.

          While as we are aware, there is a group of Israeli reservists who established “Breaking the Silence,” there is nothing like the number of resisters in Israeli society as there were in 1982. Significantly, all the reservists who I interviewed in 1983 and who were born elsewhere, Brazil, Argentina, etc., had all left and returned to their true homes, their birthplaces, when I next visited there in 2004.

          As far as I know, Cpl. Goldberg has never uttered a word of criticism or apology for that criminal war which is the equivalent of a member of the German wehrmacht being able to come to the US and become a successful journalist with no one calling him out on his past. Perhaps, a national campaign to do that very thing is now in order.

          For those who are upset with my comparison of Israel’s actions in Lebanon with those of the Nazis in Poland, the USSR, France, etc., I would appreciate them telling me the difference. I remember, for example, Lt. Uri Ram, in the tank corps, telling me that in the Ain Helweh refugee camp, they left nothing standing over a meter high. When I visited the camp a month later it appeared that very building was new.

          In the hills of Jerusalem, I stayed with another tank officer who opposed the war but mistakenly believed that we would be more effective working from within and discovered he was wrong. He told me a story that I thought was clearly an exaggeration, that Israeli tankers had blown a whole in every building on the highway from the Israeli border to Beirut. When I came to take that cab ride I realized, to my horror, that he had been telling the truth.

          My father, who had supported a bi-national state but, to his regret, had put on a major fundraiser for Israel at the Hollywood Bowl, didn’t have to go to Lebanon to make the comparison. When I spoke to him on the phone the day of Israel’s invasion, he was in a rage.

          “They are just like the Nazis,” he told me. “Go back and read Deuteronomy.” I did and if those who read this haven’t done so, they should. You will come away with a better as well as bitter understanding of the origins of the Zionist mentality.

    • Chaos4700
      November 8, 2011, 10:22 pm

      Right, Witty, because the ONLY possibilities is that Iran is run by a bunch of saints, or Iran is the next Nazi Germany. My, what a nuanced argument you have there.

    • MRW
      November 8, 2011, 10:28 pm

      Witty declaims:

      The thesis that Iran is an angel, innocent, only harrangued will fall on deaf ears and rightly.

      A more realistic portrayal of Iran (maintaining enormous aggressive proxy hostage-oriented military on Israel’s border directed only at civilians) would be helpful.

      Where is this “enormous aggressive proxy hostage-oriented military on Israel’s border” located exactly? Do you have a photo or link?

      • Chaos4700
        November 8, 2011, 10:39 pm

        And what is a “hostage-oriented military?” Supposed to be? What, does he mean like one where, oh, say, every adult male and female citizen of a certain ethnicity/religion is REQUIRED to be conscripted in the military, unless given an explicit exemption? Because that ain’t the Iranian side of this conversation…

    • Donald
      November 8, 2011, 11:00 pm

      You might want to wait and see what independent experts have to say about this report before assuming anything. We heard a lot of talk about how much evidence there was for Iraqi WMD’s back in 2002-2003 and it all evaporated into mist once the war started. Maybe this time it’s different, but at the moment there’s no way to tell.

      As for Iran’s “enormous aggressive proxy hostage-oriented military on Israel’s border directed only at civilians”, that seems a better description of the IDF than Hezbollah, if one removed the word “Iran” from the start. Iran supports allied groups just as other nations do. Israel supported murderous regimes thousands of miles away (Guatemala for one, South Africa for another) for God knows what purposes. And Israel is no slouch when it comes to hostage taking. But those are only Arabs, so they don’t count.

      Still, it’s good to know you acknowledge there are valid reasons for not attacking Iran or only doing so lightly. In the spirit of give and take, let me also concede that there are equally good reasons for not attacking Israel, or only doing it “lightly” rather than all out.

      Perhaps if it is shown that Iran really is developing nuclear weapons, we could all agree that the logical solution would be to sanction all countries in the Middle East that have nuclear weapons or which try to acquire them.

      I would also favor sanctioning either Iran or Israel if one bombs the other (conventionally or “lightly” or whatever).

      • Shingo
        November 9, 2011, 6:29 am

        The claims in he report appear to be falling apart before it has even been released.

        1. Olli Heinonen, who is no friend of Iran, said he verified that the explosive tests being conducted at Parchin were entirely conventional

        link to nytimes.com

        2. The leaks have named a former Soviet nuclear scientist Vyacheslav Danilenko, as having helped the Iranians develop their nuclear program. it turns out that Danilenko’s specialty is not nukes but nano diamonds – nano technology is a big industry in Iran. Danilenko has even been invited to give lectures in the US.

        3. The steel tanks cited by the leaks as being used for testing nuclear implosion tests are in fact detonation tanks to create nanodiamonds, and are based on a design by Danilenko.

        link to alethonews.wordpress.com

        4. Most of the rest of the allegations are based on experiments or equipment which can be used for both nuclear and civilian nuclear technology ie. dual use.

        5. All of the allegations are based on heresay provided to the IAEA, but not verified by the IAEA itself. This explains why the US got rid of AlBaredei and replaced him with Amano. AlBaredei refused to publish claims he could not verify whereas Manao is more than happy to.

  11. Richard Witty
    November 8, 2011, 10:55 pm

    Its 50,000 missiles funded, constructed, trained by Iran, pointed at Israeli civilians delivered on the order from Iran, in the event of a strike on Iran by any third party that Israel is not a party to.

    Hostage. Aggressive.

    Its funding, arming, training of Hamas and Islamic Jihad is more aggressive as they don’t restrain from unilaterally firing missiles at Israeli civilians.

    Nima’s argument is consistently “why target Iran for even criticism. They didn’t attack anyone. They didn’t break any law.”

    • Shingo
      November 9, 2011, 6:35 am

      Its 50,000 missiles funded, constructed, trained by Iran, pointed at Israeli civilians delivered on the order from Iran, in the event of a strike on Iran by any third party that Israel is not a party to.

      Who are you kidding Witty? If Iran is struck, by Israel or anyone else. it will be because Netenyau has demanded it. You refuse to blame Israel for any attack on Iran by the US, but are perfectly happy to blame Iran for an attack on Israel by Hezbollah.

      What kind of hypocritical freak show are you trying to put on here anyway?

      Its funding, arming, training of Hamas and Islamic Jihad is more aggressive as they don’t restrain from unilaterally firing missiles at Israeli civilians.

      Israel kill 10 times more civilians than Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and based on the Dahiya doctrine, Israel has a policy of targeting civilians.

      Nima’s argument is consistently “why target Iran for even criticism.

      Nima’s argument is so clearly above you intellectual acumen and comprehension, it’s not even worth discussing.

    • Shingo
      November 9, 2011, 6:41 am

      Stunning work Nima,

      Your efforts are an invaluable contribution to enlightening the public about the effort to lie us into another disastrous war based on lies.

    • Shingo
      November 9, 2011, 6:59 am

      So as I expected, the IAEA report has come out and has turned out to he a complete flop.

      link to isis-online.org

      The report is full of qualifies like “may” and references to “indications” – “indications” are not evidence.

      The opening of he report again verifies the non diversion of declared nuclear material by Iran, but claims that because Iran won;t open every door, and reveal every secrete (including non nuclear related) that the IAEA cannot verify with 100% accuracy that there is no clandestine activity taking place – even if there is no evidence of one.

      And course, there are repeated references to the Agency receiving “information from a Member State”, without any mention of whether that information has been vetted or independently confirmed.

      The report is BS and the world knows it.

      The report makes no claim about work specific to nuclear weapons, or any claims that Iran is producing nukes.

    • Donald
      November 9, 2011, 7:41 am


      Hostage. Aggressive. Nasty. Doesn’t pay for real estate. Aims at civilian infrastructure. Lies about its war crimes, morning, noon, and night. Apartheid. Racist. Democratically chooses to do these things.

      US funding of Israel is more aggressive as they don’t refrain from unilaterally killing non-Israeli civilians.

      Richard’s argument is consistently “why target Israel for even criticism. They didn’t attack anyone. They didn’t break any law.” (Note the quote marks, used in Witty-approved fashion.)

Leave a Reply