Trending Topics:

IAEA report is a dud, and ‘Moon of Alabama’ busted it wide open with “Nanodiamonds”

on 65 Comments

(Important: breaking update below)

Anybody else notice the big sucking sound in reaction to the endlessly uber hyped IAEA report? I knew it, I just knew it. Humping their fear mongering and cramming it down our collective throats the week before the report was due was because they had nothing. Because the only time they’d get away with it was before the report came out, so they ran with it hook line and sinker.  Russia and China immediately said ‘No’ to more sanctions, and virtually nothing ‘diplomats‘ and western ‘officials‘ (Elliott and Ross?) said panned out in the report, which was basically old nothing news.  The IAEA report was a Dud With Little Consequences For Iran and everybody knows it too. Here’s CSM being somewhat polite about it:

Prior to the report’s release, speculation mounted in Israel and Washington that new revelations might prompt military strikes to prevent Iran from acquiring a weapon. Instead, experts say, much of the information is years old, inconclusive – and perhaps not entirely real.


Among several technical points, Kelley notes the report’s discussion of Iran’s “exploding bridge-wire detonators,” or EBWs. The IAEA report said it recognizes that “there exist non-nuclear applications, albeit few,” and point to a likely weapons connection for Iran.

“The Agency is wrong. There are lots of applications for EBWs,” says Kelley. “To be wrong on this point, and then to try to misdirect opinion shows a bias towards their desired outcome…. That is unprofessional.”

Color me shocked. China? Russia? phff..blew it off. Tough sanctions? Forget about it.

The scare mongering narrative rapidly started crumbling after b. at Moon of Alabama published On “Nuclear Iran” Allegations: Nanodiamonds Ain’t Nuclear Bombs quickly followed by The Scary “R265 generator” Is Just Old Stuff.

In a Guardian story Julian Borger today confirms at least some part of yesterday’s analysis here and now points out the relation of nanodiamonds to Danilenko. Funny how that didn’t occur in Borger’s piece yesterday or any earlier pieces by him. He claims to have known Danielenko’s name since 2009 but only today, after I published on it, he mentions nanodiamonds. Doesn’t he know how to use Google or did he keep that information from his readers only to weasel it out now?

Yesterday b. published  The IAEA Confirms My Nanodiamond Analysis .

You might be wondering what Nanodiamonds are all about.

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.

This is a detonation tank to create nanodiamonds, not a nuclear device.

Very small diamonds are useful for many purposes, like polishing optics or PC hard disks. That is why, for example, Drexel University in Philadelphia invited Danilenko for a talk at its Nanotechnology Institute:

On January 29, the AJ Drexel Nanotechnology Institute sponsored a Nanodiamond Lecture, “Nanodiamonds: Reactor Design and Synthesis,” by noted Ukrainian scientist Dr. Vyacheslav Danilenko. Dr. Danilenko was among the first to demonstrate detonation synthesis of diamonds and has more than 30 years experience in the design of reactors for the synthesis of nanodiamonds.

Some years ago Iran launched a big Nano Technology Initiative which includes Iranian research on detonation nanodiamonds (pdf). Iran is officially planning 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.

I recommend following the link and reading the rest of b.’s research including the many embedded links not included here.

Others have observed,  “it is noteworthy that “nanodiamonds” do not appear in any of the reports from Reuters, BBC (where you will find a lovely graphic on an implosion trigger), the Washington Post or the New York Times.. All it took for is for one astute blogger to spell it out for us.

Yesterday the Guardian finally linked to b.’s Nanodiamond analysis.

Thanks b.

Update: My Nanodiamonds Analysis Starts to Kill The IAEA’s Case

Gareth Porter of Inter Press Service added some bits to my analysis in a piece published yesterday.

Now even more confirmation is coming in. Via The Hindu:

The Soviet scientist was not named in the IAEA report but the Kommersant daily easily identified him as Vyacheslav Danilenko, a pioneer in developing the technology of producing nanodiamonds by explosion. Nanodiamonds are used in the manufacture of lubricants and rubber.

Contacted by the newspaper, the 76-year-old scientist, now retired, refused to discuss his work in Iran, saying only: “I’m not a nuclear physicist and I’m not a father of Iran’s nuclear programme.”

His former colleague confirmed Mr. Danilenko’s words. Vladimir Padalko, head of a company producing nanodiamonds, said experts from the IAEA and the U.S. State Department had interviewed him several times about Mr. Danilenko’s work in Iran.

“I explained to them that nanodiamonds have nothing to do with nuclear weapons,” Mr. Padalko told Kommersant.

Reuters also covers the Kommersant piece.

More at the link!

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .

Posted In:

65 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    November 10, 2011, 12:13 pm

    Annie, if all this is true and correct and what-not, it’ll only take (my watch is out and the second hand numeral is moving) 13 years to reach the pages of WaPo and NYT. Nice all the same. Thanks!

    More here

  2. iamuglow
    November 10, 2011, 12:15 pm

    It didn’t stop the worthless Times from putting it on their front page though.

    From the comments online though few people were buying it

    “Are they lining us up to get into another war? Our country is practacally broke now. I don’t see how we could manage it.”

    “Well, well, doesn’t this all sound familiar?”

    “and so it begins, the disinformation starts by naming ‘credible sources’ who are too shy to be names so we can check their credibility. Soon Hilary will be sitting in Colin Powell’s chair at the UN showing the graphs and the grainy photos to fill in the blanks. and so it will continue until WAR is validated and the Pentagon can ramp up its purchasing of equipment.”

    “Guess one of these days the UN will be reporting that there is evidence that Israel has developed nuclear devices”

    and on and on…

    • Charon
      November 10, 2011, 5:21 pm

      Stuff like this makes me wonder why questioning the official version of certain incidents in recent history makes one a nutter or a kook.

      Why would they lie about that? Well, Iraqi nukes, aluminum tubes, this Iran stuff, I/P… Yeah they are reliable sources alright.

  3. justicewillprevail
    November 10, 2011, 12:21 pm

    Same old, same old. Exactly the same hype and hysteria as we witnessed when Bush and co had already decided for war against Iraq. Dishonest, deceiving pr stunts, cobbled together old and vague information – the ‘facts’ fixed around the policy. And the same clueless bigots pumping out warmongering fantasies, like it will be ‘quick’ and ‘air only’ etc. Iraq cost trillions for dubious benefits, Afghanistan is a quagmire, but nothing deters these global cowboys. When the economy is tanking the US taxpayers are supposed to pony up for more death and destruction to satisfy the mindless cheerleaders for more war. Strangelove lunatics and Israel-obsessed fantasists who have learnt nothing, and think they can pull the same strokes on credulous voters with the assistance of a bent, conspiring media.

    • ToivoS
      November 10, 2011, 5:11 pm

      The difference between this story and the examples you allude to here is the time it took to expose them. The IAEA report was debunked within hours of its release. The false information in the buildup to the war in Iraq percolated through the media for months and years before being debunked.

      Today the information has been politically neutered before it could spread and incite war.

      • annie
        November 10, 2011, 5:18 pm

        The IAEA report was debunked within hours of its release.

        actually, because some details of it were ‘leaked’ prior to it’s release, by the time it was released it had already been debunked. b’s report surfaced on the 7th and was already linked thru numerous sites. the report wasn’t released til the next day

        by the time the report was released people were ready to ponce on it and they knew exactly where to look. maybe if the msm aipac minions hadn’t tried bragging about it and making this the centerpiece of their great ‘find’ they could have milked a few days of wild accusatory press out of it. just enough to have a ‘debate’, enough to own the meme. but that didn’t really happen.

      • MRW
        November 10, 2011, 9:00 pm

        Someone notify NPR. I don’t have time; maybe someone else does. More derisive complaints going into NPR, the better (I’ve been dinging them for two weeks). They’re still clinging to the pre-IAEA release.

      • annie
        November 10, 2011, 9:05 pm

        where’s kathleen when we need her?

      • ToivoS
        November 10, 2011, 9:09 pm

        B, whoever he or she is, deserves some kind of internet reporter prize. These are people who work without pay and simply synthesizie publicly available information. You know this reminds me of IF Stone who made a career of reading public records and connecting the dots.

        In my first comment on this breaking story I predicted that Gareth Porter would put the pieces together (at the time I was quite unaware of Alabama). Well he did today and he generously cited Moon of Alabama for the scoop. B acknowledged that Porter helped move the story line (namely showing that much of information in the IAEA report came from Israel).

      • annie
        November 10, 2011, 9:14 pm

        toivo, i hope you go over to moa and tell b that, i’m sure it would make him very happy. tell him i sent you.


      • annie
        November 10, 2011, 10:18 pm

        toivo, b is a he. his name is bernhard (obviously you did not follow my ‘about’ link in the comments here).

        just to give you a little idea of the roller coasrter of b’s prescient mind check out the progression of The South Ossetian War. b called it before anyone and it took over a month for the US to admit Saakashvili (georgia) started that war, not russia. it was during the run up to our election and mc cain was all over it…israel too (check first comment first link). the comments are critical on this site. many smart people.

        this one is killer and just the beginning.

        but for a list of all the moa south ossesia coverage (vital) it’s here.

        during this period the sitemeter was going crazy with lots of the links from military sites around the globe. (right now there are 90 international readers)

        iow, if you want to check out any time period just go to the archives of a month in time on the left hand column…

      • ToivoS
        November 11, 2011, 2:38 am

        OK annie I did do so. The man does deserve some recognition.

      • annie
        September 27, 2016, 2:30 am

        yeah, absolutely. spot on w/syria too.

  4. justicewillprevail
    November 10, 2011, 12:40 pm

    Muhammad Sahimi has a good tear-down of the politicisation of the IAEA, the reliance on old, unsubstantiated rumours and fabrications here:

    • annie
      November 10, 2011, 12:54 pm

      justice, check out the update on your link:

      Update: Inter Press Service’s Gareth Porter reports that the “foreign scientist” who supposedly helped Iran’s nuclear program has, in fact, never worked with weapons. Porter names the scientist as Vyacheslav Danilenko and reports that he has nothing to do with the nuclear weapons field, but rather is one of the world’s leading experts in the production of nanodiamonds by explosives. According to Porter, the Ukrainian Danilenko has never been involved in any weapons research and the “unnamed [IAEA] member state that informed the agency about Danilenko’s alleged experience as a Soviet nuclear weapon scientist is almost certainly Israel, which has been the source of virtually all the purported intelligence on Iranian work on nuclear weapons over the past decade.”

      but garth’s report came out 2 days after b’s. b broke it on the 7th.

  5. seanmcbride
    November 10, 2011, 12:45 pm

    Annie: Moon of Alabama is a great find. Do you know of any other hidden gems like this in the blogosphere?

    • annie
      November 10, 2011, 1:00 pm

      there’s nothing like moon of alabama on the internet. b has broken many many stories. i’ve been following him since before he opened the site when he used to post on billmon’s whiskey bar. he’s essential as far as i am concerned. it’s worth poking around the archives.

      • seanmcbride
        November 10, 2011, 1:39 pm

        This is billmon of Whiskey Bar? One of my favorite bloggers of all time. Brilliant guy and an indefatigable truth teller. It will be great to reconnect with his thoughts.

      • annie
        November 10, 2011, 3:29 pm

        no, this is not billmon. when billmon closed down the comment section of whiskey bar b. (Bernhard) created moon of alabama (here’s the about page) as a space to comment on billmon’s posts.

        hence if you google moon of alabama and billmon you can find those discussions. billmon used to comment there on occasion also for a few years but not anymore as far as i know.

        but many of the same commenters from whiskey bar (myself included) are still there. b closed down for awhile in 09 and during that time i started hanging out here more and more. he reopened in dec 10 to our great relief.

        in 08 (i think it was 08) many of us met @ b.’s house in europe for a week. we had some fun!

      • Tzombo
        November 10, 2011, 3:44 pm

        I had no idea MoA was back again, thanks for pointing that out. I must have deleted the bookmark after I was convinced it would not return. I still miss billmon…

      • seanmcbride
        November 10, 2011, 3:59 pm

        Does anyone know why billmon stopped writing?

      • annie
        November 10, 2011, 4:02 pm

        i never took MOA off my toolbar, ever. i had serious withdrawls when he closed down.

        oh, here’s a fun feature. on the bottom left hand corner of every moa page is a sitemeter link. right now it says “2,535,000 visitors since june 2004”

        click on it and then click the ‘who’s on function’. you can read where people are logging in from. right now there are people on from singapore to zug (whereever that is), london, vienna. if you click ‘by world map’ it shows you where all over the globe people are logging in from. there’s someone out on a boat somewhere and also someone on the horn of africa.

        anyway..back on topic..

      • Donald
        November 10, 2011, 5:33 pm

        “billmon of Whiskey Bar? One of my favorite bloggers of all time. Brilliant guy and an indefatigable truth teller.”

        Agreed. I sometimes try to tell a friend in real life just how much better the best blogs are than anything you will read in the MSM or see on TV and if Billmon were still around I’d put him at the very top. Krugman is good, but he’s the only one consistently worth reading at the NYT. (Occasionally Kristof is okay.) Everyone else at the NYT is a total waste of space. My friend liked Frank Rich when he was at the NYT, but while Rich was okay (a complete coward on some issues, like Israel), most of his columns looked like rehashes of something one could have read at Digby’s “Hullabaloo” or some such place a few days earlier. My friend also likes Rachel Maddow, who in my opinion is vastly overrated. (She’s also worthless on the I/P conflict, but since most mainstreamers are that’s probably not a fair test.) People who don’t read the better blogs don’t have any notion of what halfway decent political commentary looks like.

      • annie
        November 10, 2011, 6:03 pm

        yeah, i used to be a billmon addict and i took it personally when he stopped blogging, which was stupid. some of the very best minds are just not available to us. but it’s always been like that.

      • CTuttle
        November 10, 2011, 11:02 pm

        i never took MOA off my toolbar, ever. i had serious withdrawls when he closed down.

        I know I’d suffered the same DT’s… I needed the liquor he’d served up…! ;-)

    • kapok
      November 10, 2011, 7:23 pm

      spare a click for Cuba
      which is a lot like Palestine these days.

  6. Am_America
    November 10, 2011, 12:48 pm

    Nanodiamonds? sounds like a the makings for a IAEA/Iran truther movement.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      November 10, 2011, 1:25 pm

      “Nanodiamonds? sounds like a the makings for a IAEA/Iran truther movement.”

      You don’t understand how dumb that statement makes you look, do you? It’s like someone who hasn’t the first ideas about computers saying that the talk about “silicone chips” is hooey, and everyone should know that computers are just boxes possessed by the devil.

      • Keith
        November 10, 2011, 7:06 pm

        WOODY- I’m guessing that Am_America is trying to be funny. Nanothermite. Nanodiamonds. Truther. Get it? Obviously he’s no Mooser, but how many of us are?

      • annie
        November 10, 2011, 7:51 pm

        oops i have a hard time remembering all my nanos

        sorry i missed your joke am m

    • Donald
      November 10, 2011, 1:26 pm

      Was that supposed to be a serious comment? I’m no fan of the 9/11 truth movement (some here are), but this article is nothing like that. It appears that Danielenko and his work has been misrepresented in the mainstream press.

      • seanmcbride
        November 10, 2011, 1:40 pm

        Since leading 9/11 Commission members no less have expressed, to put it mildly, skepticism about the 9/11 official story, what rational and patriotic American wouldn’t support a major drive to uncover the full truth about 9/11? Even the New York Times and the Washington Post have called for a new investigation into the 9/11 anthrax attacks.

        We have barely scratched the surface of what really happened with regard to the most spectacular terrorist crime in American history. The operational details of 9/11 remain a black hole — to such a degree that we still can’t even name the lead financiers behind the deed. The aroma of a full-press cover-up hangs heavily over every aspect of 9/11.

      • Donald
        November 10, 2011, 2:06 pm

        Sean–It would not surprise me if there are some things about 9/11 that were covered up–it’d be more surprising if there weren’t some things that were covered up. But I don’t want to get into that. My point was that AM seems to be reacting in a kneejerk fashion to this post.

      • seanmcbride
        November 10, 2011, 2:32 pm


        I get your point. My point is that there may be extraordinarily important things about 9/11 being covered that have had disastrous effects on American foreign and domestic policy for the last decade. The entire subject needs to be reopened, with a vigorous investigation into every aspect of the event. (I am not trying to stir up that discussion here — it is much too big and complex a topic to take up in Mondoweiss.)

      • ToivoS
        November 10, 2011, 4:55 pm

        Sean I agree that there is much that we do not know about 911. Unfortunately, the 911 truthers introduced so much outlandish BS into the questions that it made it almost impossible to to raise any serious questions with appearing as damn fool conspiracy nut. I think the biggest blow to a rational discussion occurred after many on the left bought into the absurd controlled demolition fantasies.

        It was those people who are to blame for killing a rational discussion over the real unanswered questions.

      • Charon
        November 10, 2011, 5:34 pm

        ToivoS, that’s why it’s best to leave it out of discussion here on MW. The Hasbaraists use it to de-legitimize and dismiss what is written, no matter how factual or rational it may be. It’s difficult for me to avoid bringing it up because of its relevancy today, and because I think real discussion is important. There are just far too many ‘troofers’ to have a real conversation. They want to believe in the crazy stuff because to them it is more interesting than reality. They did more harm than good and I have a feeling that some of the crazier stuff has its origins in cointelpro-style disinfo trolls who deliberately poisoned that well.

        Am_American is the one who comes off like super kook in this instance. They can laugh it off all they want, we’re laughing right back.

      • MRW
        November 10, 2011, 9:15 pm


        I think the biggest blow to a rational discussion occurred after many on the left bought into the absurd controlled demolition fantasies.

        I think Mooser said it best:

        You know: thwack, pulverize, then fall. 8.5 seconds. Ah! Neoconservative Physics.

      • annie
        November 10, 2011, 9:26 pm

        agreed MRW. I think the biggest blow to a rational discussion occurred after many on the left bought into the absurd ‘official stories’ fantasy. funny how nobody believed bush , cheney and the rest of the neocons except when it came to 9/11. ha! what dupes.

      • ToivoS
        November 10, 2011, 11:02 pm

        Actually I just went back and looked at that link. Mooser as usual is clever but the more important posts in the thread were made by Keith, Donald and Syvanen who thoroughly exposed the scientific ignorance of the truthers.

    • annie
      November 10, 2011, 1:37 pm

      here’s reuters am_a, according to you another ‘truther movement’ moment.

      Kommersant said Danilenko was one of the world’s top experts on detonation nanodiamonds, the creation of tiny diamonds from conventional explosions for a variety of uses from lubricants to medicine.

      The International Atomic Energy Agency said in its report this week that Iran appears to have worked on designing an atomic bomb and may still be conducting secret research, prompting Western leaders to call for more sanctions against Tehran.

      Russia criticised the U.N. nuclear watchdog report, saying it contained no new evidence and was being used to undercut efforts to reach a diplomatic solution. Iran denies it is seeking to build a nuclear weapon.


      The Washington Post said Danilenko was believed to have tutored the Iranians over several years on building detonators which could be used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction.

      He worked at the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Technical Physics (VNIITF), a top secret nuclear weapons research centre in the Ural mountains, from the 1950s until retirement.

      Kommersant said Danilenko had also worked in Ukrainian nanodiamond company Alit from 1992 to 1996.

      The company’s director, Vladimir Padalko, said U.S. and IAEA officials had contacted him several times in previous years for information about Danilenko.

      so the IAEA knew, and said nothing about nanodiamonds in the report. this is mostly information b broke in his first report.

      • MRW
        November 10, 2011, 9:06 pm

        Actually, Danilenko denied he’d ever worked as a nuclear weapons scientist.

      • annie
        November 10, 2011, 9:17 pm

        so who are we going to believe? wapo or Danilenko?

  7. Dan Crowther
    Dan Crowther
    November 10, 2011, 1:54 pm

    I only understood a few words from the reports annie linked to ( thanks, as always annie!)

    but if those words combine to mean that the US and Israel are full of shit (which it seems, they do) – Im in!

    • Shingo
      November 10, 2011, 2:46 pm


      The report is very difficult to sift through even for someone like me who’s used to reading them. You might have noticed d the words like “may” and “possible” and “indications”? These are all a dead giveaway that they have nothing

      In fact, the appendix was so vague and non sepecific, Itamar sounded like they got Witty to write it.

      • annie
        November 10, 2011, 3:10 pm

        i assume you mean the IAEA report shingo?

      • Shingo
        November 10, 2011, 6:05 pm

        Yes Anni.

        The appendix, which contains all juicy bits, is full or qualifiers and non committal language.

      • Dan Crowther
        Dan Crowther
        November 10, 2011, 3:25 pm

        hahaha! thanks shingo – i was (sort of) kidding. “possible” and “indications” along with the occasional “the,” I got – this shit about nanodiamond synthesis or whatever? nah son. Not my bag…..haha

      • annie
        November 10, 2011, 4:15 pm

        well dan, can you understand this:

        More people are taking a deeper look into this now. It seems likely that the whole case will blow up into the IAEA’s face and in the face of David Albright who, according to Porter, was the one who slipped the scientist’s name to the Washington Post and other media.

        After knowing the name it was simply diligent use of search engines and some intelligent combining of the available information to find what Danilenko’s work was really about.

        A lot of the IAEA “evidence” that it has interpreted as “nuclear” stuff, the explosion chamber in Parchin, the hemispheric shell with an array of high explosives, the exploding bridge-wire detonators and other details, are all very well explainable with Iran’s work on nanodiamond production. There is nothing exclusively “nuclear” to it. Without that exclusivity the case the IAEA tried to make doesn’t exist anymore.

        Why the IAEA and the main stream media have not better researched on Danilenko’s work, or done this and then disregarded the obvious conclusions, is beyond me. It is likely only explainable by heavy U.S. pressure on the IAEA head Yukiya Amano and a generally pliable media.

        The IAEA should be deeply embarrassed when even a former inspector with knowledge of the evidence calls its recent work “unprofessional”.

        it’s not all scientific mumbo jumbo. most of it is pretty straightforward.

      • Dan Crowther
        Dan Crowther
        November 10, 2011, 4:29 pm

        I Understand!! HAHA!! Success!

        Thanks annie. And Shingo. And the English Language – you finally came through for me!

      • annie
        November 10, 2011, 4:38 pm

        congrats dan! you can even go over there and comment. no registration necessary. i’m sure people would welcome your presence.

      • Shingo
        November 10, 2011, 6:09 pm

        “After knowing the name it was simply diligent use of search engines and some intelligent combining of the available information to find what Danilenko’s work was really about.”

        Which is exactly how the IAEA exposed the Niger uranium forgeries.

        Mhumammed Sahimi’s take down of the report is the most extensive and detailed I’ve read so far. In fact, he documents exactly when Iran had reported all of these questions in the past.

        As he points out, why would Iranian scientists be publishing their work in scientific journals if all of this was part of a secret nuclear weapons program?

      • piotr
        November 10, 2011, 7:31 pm

        Look, if they would drop this chamber in the middle of Tel Aviv it would be far from laughing matter. And if the explosion could pressure graphite into diamonds, it could also be used to squeeze enriched uranium into a little ball above the critical mass.

        A layman would object that it is much easier to make pigs fly than a very heavy metal chamber. But Iran also has highly secret program to recreate Flying Carpets, and perhaps in the next 6 months it some carpets will be operational. Alas, no UN agency regulates the proliferation of Flying Carpets.

      • MRW
        November 10, 2011, 9:08 pm

        NPR was touting Parchin as a nuclear weapons testing site or some such thing this AM.

      • Shingo
        November 10, 2011, 9:52 pm

        NPR was touting Parchin as a nuclear weapons testing site or some such thing this AM.

        Even Olli Heinonen, no friend of Iran, has debunked the claims about Parching in the NYT.

  8. Les
    November 10, 2011, 3:15 pm

    Is this diamond revelation the reason for the outing of Dennis Ross?

    • annie
      November 10, 2011, 3:44 pm

      not sure i would go so far as to say it was just the nanodiamonds. but the over all gist of it..the big push for days and days of warmongering press hoping to get out in front of the story as if people were not going to notice the report was flat..that was probably ross’s brilliant idea. this is kind of a no brainer which is why i called it days ago. also scroll down to my 9:52 post. there was just way too much definitive bs coming from anonymous ‘officials’ and ‘diplomats’. that is code for ross and elliot and the neocon minions and aipac.

      they had nothing and they lied. also check out A Full Turn In NYT’s IAEA “Reporting”. and here:

      While reading it I will keep in mind this Wikileaks cable:

      Amano reminded Ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

      so basically the new director of the IAEA has trashed his own reputation too.

  9. ToivoS
    November 10, 2011, 5:06 pm

    What I find most appalling about this is:

    “experts from the IAEA and the U.S. State Department had interviewed him [current CEO nanodiamond co.] several times about Mr. Danilenko’s work in Iran”

    Which means that IAEA and USDOS both knew before the report was written that Danilenko had spent the last 50 years working on synthetic diamonds and was a pioneer in detonation nanodiamond synthesis. This IAEA report has to be as close to deliberate lying as can be imagined.

    Hopefully Amano and his idiot Finn side kick will be forced to resign.

  10. piotr
    November 10, 2011, 7:40 pm

    I am not sure if Amano will be discredited in the West. But East is another matter. The news about nanodiamonds were prominent both in Russia and India. India is interesting because the government wobbles between appeasing USA and “non-alignment movement attitudes”. In practical terms, India may increase trade with Iran and decrease adherence to American sanctions or not, and it is hard to figure out what they will do (India made contradictory commitments).

  11. CTuttle
    November 10, 2011, 10:36 pm

    Aloha, annie…! Ain’t it cool to see everybody connecting on line…? FB Ali linked to MOA at SST, EW citing b, Iran Affairs’ Cyrus Safdari had even commented on myFDL diary… I was flattered…! ;-)

    • annie
      November 10, 2011, 10:46 pm

      hey i liked you diary ctuttle! so awesome. yes it is very cool. i will have to go check out your comment section for safdari’s comment, haven’t been there since you linked yesterday. ciao. i should hat tip lysias too..

  12. Richard Witty
    Richard Witty
    November 11, 2011, 7:22 am

    Published 11:23 11.11.11
    Latest update 11:23 11.11.11

    Iran sees nuclear program as last line of defense against West, expert says

    There isn’t any real chance of thwarting Iran’s nuclear program through escalated sanctions or negotiated compromise, an Iranian expert told Haaretz, days after the International Atomic Energy Agency published a report indicating that Tehran was seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

    Mehdi Khalaji, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that the Iranian regime considered its nuclear program as the utmost tool to preserve its survival, meaning that pressure by the West could not sway Tehran away from further advances.

    • Shingo
      November 11, 2011, 9:48 am

      What is this article supposed to prove Witty, other than another example of yours stupidity?

      Are we to be impressed that a member of a pro Israeli think tank (ie. proven liars driven by ideology)?

  13. talknic
    September 27, 2016, 8:46 am

    Same type of smelly Ziopoop in 2009 … it’s a never ending flow

Leave a Reply