Friday
Feb202009
UPDATED --- Not a Bombshell: The Report on Iran's Uranium and US (Non-)Reaction
Friday, February 20, 2009 at 14:43
See Also: Text of the International Atomic Energy Agency Report on Iran’s Nuclear Programme
Update (2:45 p.m.): The lead story on CNN International's website, "Experts: Iran ready to build nuclear weapon", is not a "scary interpretation" of the IAEA report: it is an outright distortion. Rather than quote from the report or the officials who compiled it, they refer to the "Institute for Science and International Security", who have "interpreted" the report.
Thus we get the scary side that "Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon but does have enough low-enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon without any of the explanation, details, and caveats offered by United Nations officials. Or, for that matter, other "experts" who might have offered the appropriate context for the report.
Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation offers a useful corrective: "Don't Let the Iran Headlines Scare You".
On Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued its latest report on Iranian nuclear production. It was a classic half-full, half-empty analysis: those wanting to play up the Iranian threat could note that that Iran has produced more enriched uranium than previously estimated, declaring that Tehran now has enough material for "one bomb". Those preferring a more measured response could highlight the conclusion that Iran's enrichment programme has slowed "considerably".
Some in the American and British "mainstream" media will go for the scarier interpretation --- in The New York Times, it's Iran understates enriched uranium level by one-third in Paragraph One, Enough for a Bomb in Paragraph Two. However, it is not only Agence France Presse that is pointing to the slower pace of enrichment. The Washington Post headlines, "Iran Easing Aspects Of Nuclear Program" and leads with, "The slower pace was interpreted by some U.N. officials as a conciliatory gesture in advance of any diplomatic overtures by the Obama administration."
Indeed, UN officials are also providing the general reassurance that "the discrepancy results from Iran’s estimates versus careful measurement", rather than any deception by Tehran, and that "the inconsistency [is] reasonable for a new enrichment plant". That could be important, countering the soundbites of "experts" like Gary Milhollin on the higher level of enriched uranium: "It's worse than we thought".
Of course, enrichment is not the key issue for an Iranian nuclear weapons, as opposed to nuclear energy, programme. That issue is whether Iran is "weaponising" with any programme to develop nuclear warheads, and there is no evidence that Iran has reversed its suspension of that effort in 2003. As a UN official told The New York Times, "The material would have to undergo further enrichment if it was to be used as fuel for a bomb and...atomic inspectors had found no signs that Iran was making such preparations."
Most importantly, it is not the media reaction --- or even that matters here but the response of the Obama Administration. In the NYT, "a senior administration official" took a We're Watching line:
There is no Administration response in The Washington Post.
Of course, with the President and Secretary of State outside the US, the Administration could be in a holding pattern until next week. Yet it's still significant, I think, that Obama's officials were not primed to return to the Bush Administration's blueprint of Sanctions, Sanctions, Sanctions. In effect, they've allowed the UN to take the lead, damping down any media hyperbole.
And that means, I think, that engagement with Iran is still the priority for this Administration. No bombshells here, just the steadier if slower emphasis on diplomacy.
So keep an eye on whether the Obama Administration plays up the drama of the higher enriched-uranium figures and refers to more sanctions against Iran, or whether it plays down any threat, thus protecting the priority of engagement.
Update (2:45 p.m.): The lead story on CNN International's website, "Experts: Iran ready to build nuclear weapon", is not a "scary interpretation" of the IAEA report: it is an outright distortion. Rather than quote from the report or the officials who compiled it, they refer to the "Institute for Science and International Security", who have "interpreted" the report.
Thus we get the scary side that "Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon but does have enough low-enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon without any of the explanation, details, and caveats offered by United Nations officials. Or, for that matter, other "experts" who might have offered the appropriate context for the report.
Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation offers a useful corrective: "Don't Let the Iran Headlines Scare You".
On Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued its latest report on Iranian nuclear production. It was a classic half-full, half-empty analysis: those wanting to play up the Iranian threat could note that that Iran has produced more enriched uranium than previously estimated, declaring that Tehran now has enough material for "one bomb". Those preferring a more measured response could highlight the conclusion that Iran's enrichment programme has slowed "considerably".
Some in the American and British "mainstream" media will go for the scarier interpretation --- in The New York Times, it's Iran understates enriched uranium level by one-third in Paragraph One, Enough for a Bomb in Paragraph Two. However, it is not only Agence France Presse that is pointing to the slower pace of enrichment. The Washington Post headlines, "Iran Easing Aspects Of Nuclear Program" and leads with, "The slower pace was interpreted by some U.N. officials as a conciliatory gesture in advance of any diplomatic overtures by the Obama administration."
Indeed, UN officials are also providing the general reassurance that "the discrepancy results from Iran’s estimates versus careful measurement", rather than any deception by Tehran, and that "the inconsistency [is] reasonable for a new enrichment plant". That could be important, countering the soundbites of "experts" like Gary Milhollin on the higher level of enriched uranium: "It's worse than we thought".
Of course, enrichment is not the key issue for an Iranian nuclear weapons, as opposed to nuclear energy, programme. That issue is whether Iran is "weaponising" with any programme to develop nuclear warheads, and there is no evidence that Iran has reversed its suspension of that effort in 2003. As a UN official told The New York Times, "The material would have to undergo further enrichment if it was to be used as fuel for a bomb and...atomic inspectors had found no signs that Iran was making such preparations."
Most importantly, it is not the media reaction --- or even that matters here but the response of the Obama Administration. In the NYT, "a senior administration official" took a We're Watching line:
There is a steady timeline of improvement, especially in terms of mastering the efficiency of the centrifuges. Everyone’s nervous and worried about the possibility of Iran pursuing a clandestine capability.
There is no Administration response in The Washington Post.
Of course, with the President and Secretary of State outside the US, the Administration could be in a holding pattern until next week. Yet it's still significant, I think, that Obama's officials were not primed to return to the Bush Administration's blueprint of Sanctions, Sanctions, Sanctions. In effect, they've allowed the UN to take the lead, damping down any media hyperbole.
And that means, I think, that engagement with Iran is still the priority for this Administration. No bombshells here, just the steadier if slower emphasis on diplomacy.
So keep an eye on whether the Obama Administration plays up the drama of the higher enriched-uranium figures and refers to more sanctions against Iran, or whether it plays down any threat, thus protecting the priority of engagement.
tagged Agence France Presse, Barack Obama, CNN, Gary Milhollin, Institute for Science and International Security, International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran, New York Times, Nuclear Weapons, Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation, United Nations, Washington Post, uranium enrichment in Middle East & Iran, US Foreign Policy
Agence France Presse, Barack Obama, CNN, Gary Milhollin, Institute for Science and International Security, International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran, New York Times, Nuclear Weapons, Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation, United Nations, Washington Post, uranium enrichment in Middle East & Iran, US Foreign Policy 
Evening Update (8 p.m.): Another obstacle to the Egyptian-brokered talks, this time over Palestinian unity.