UPDATED --- Not a Bombshell: The Report on Iran's Uranium and US (Non-)Reaction

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 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.

Is Israel Winning a Covert War Against Iran?: An Alternative Analysis

Responding to Scott Lucas' analysis yesterday of the "revelations" of an Israeli covert programme to disrupt Iran's nuclear programme, including economic sabotage and assassinations, Josh Mull offers a far different point of view. The story in The Daily Telegraph is not Western/Israeli psychological warfare against Tehran; instead, it indicates that Israeli pressure has lost and an American engagement with Iran has triumphed.

Earlier this week in The Daily Telegraph, it was revealed by former US intelligence operatives that Israel and the United States have allegedly been waging a covert campaign of kidnappings, assassinations, and sabotage against Iran's nuclear program. In his post "Is Israel Winning a Covert War Against Iran?", Professor Lucas proposes that this revelation is "a bit of 'psychological warfare' to keep Tehran off-balance over what might and might not be attempted to undermine its nuclear programme" as well as a "stick" in non-proliferation discussions.

However, the leak could also be interpreted as exactly the opposite of Prof. Lucas's assessment. Not only is this revelation more concrete than mere "psychological" warfare. It is a Loss, not a Win, for Israel and a Carrot, not a Stick, for Iran.

There are already reports that the United States and Israel have targeted Iranian nuclear operatives in the past. In December 2006, the Iranian Deputy Defense Minister, Ali Reza Asgari, disappeared while travelling in Istanbul, Turkey. The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet speculated at the time that Asgari had hidden his family in Damascus, Syria before defecting to the West. However, according to the Iranian Labor News Agency, Asgari's family was actually back in Iran. They denied Asgari would seek asylum with the west, and Iran publicly accused the US and Israel of kidnapping Asgari, a process known as "extraordinary rendition." Four months later, US non-proliferation expert Robert Levinson disappeared under equally mysterious circumstances in Iran, a possible retaliation for Asgari.

There is also evidence possibly verifying the existence of the shell companies which, the Telegraph article suggests, are used to "dupe" and sabotage Iranian companies involved in the nuclear program. The US Treasury Department regularly designates, or "burns" to use apt intelligence lingo, corporations and financial entities it knows to be connected to illicit Iranian activities. For instance, in December 2008, in a possible closing act of the exiting Bush Administration, the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) burned one of its largest shell companies, Assa Corporation.

World Check reported at the time "the corporate name chosen, Assa Corp. and Co., is deceptively similar to that of a well-known European corporation and of several US companies. This is a tactic frequently employed by financial criminals to confuse and mislead." World Check also pointed out "the address of the New York corporation appears to be that of the law firm that organised the company, which could indicate that it is a shell company with no actual address. The company has no telephone listing in New York, has no Internet footprint, and does not have a principal place of business."

Note there are never any subsequent indictments or investigations into these "designated" entities, just a simple burning, or public destruction, of the intelligence asset. While parallel information from Iran regarding their financial investigations is unavailable, it could be presumed that companies are burned by OFAC after being discovered by Iranian counter-intelligence officials.

The leak can be seen as a major loss, not a win, for Israel. As the CIA officer told the Telegraph, "Disruption is designed to slow progress on the programme, done in such a way that they don't realise what's happening." Obviously, Iran is now fully aware of the operation. Israeli intelligence services will be, or more likely have already been, forced to abort all facets of the operation and Iranian nuclear officials will likely be even more closely scrutinized, controlled, and monitored by state security services.

One of the most grim aspects of Israel's loss is, of course, the gruesome destruction of its intelligence assets remaining in Iran. Fars, an Iranian news agency, reported in November 2008 that three people suspected of spying for Israel, specifically a connection to Defense Minister Asgari's kidnapping, were executed by the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps. CNN also reports on another man, Ali Ashtari, who "was convicted by [the IRGC) in June of spying for Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad." Furthermore "according to Ashtari's 'confession,' published by Fars, he was a salesman who obtained high-end but security-compromised pieces of electronic equipment...and sold them to military and defense centers in Iran." The covert war, clearly already suffering losses, will now possibly be completely dismantled.

With that in mind, it's possible to see this as not only a "stick" for Israel, but also as a "carrot" for Iran. The consequences for Israel have been noted, but the direct benefits to Iran require more subtlty to discern. As Prof. Lucas points out in his analysis, the sources Radio Farda and STRATFOR, used in the Telegraph leak as well as other similar leaks, have been linked to the US Government and its intelligence agencies in the past. However, rather than interpreting their connection to US intelligence as a disqualification, it should more accurately interpreted as adding legitimacy to the claims. Quite plainly, it could mean the US Government explicitly authorized the release of this information.

The benefit to Iran would be tangible evidence that the administration of President Barack Obama was ending the policy of regime change in Iran. Furthermore, he is willing to use US psychological operations assets previously devoted to targeting Iran to instead target Israel. It will be difficult for Iranian hardliners to argue that the US is a either a puppet or puppeteer of Zionist interests when Obama is burning Israeli intelligence assets on the front page of the Daily Telegraph.

If there is in fact an American and Israeli covert war of disruption being waged against Iran's nuclear program, it is now in my judgement, completely over, with the results being a humiliating loss for Israel, a lowering of hostilities with Iran, and a vastly strengthened American diplomatic position vis-a-vis the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

US Government Documents: Proof of "Ghost Detention", Torture, Death

Last night we closed an update with a note that CNN had just reported on hundreds of pages of documents obtained by Amnesty International USA, New York University’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, and the Center for Constitutional Rights — which established that the Pentagon sought loopholes in the Geneva Conventions to hide “ghost detainees”. They also confirmed that the Bush Administration delayed the release of Guantanamo Bay detainees to avoid negative publicity.

This morning the American Civil Liberties Union has released two pages from a Department of Defense document concerning the death of two detainees at Camp Bagram in Afghanistan:

"In both cases, for example, [prisoners] were handcuffed to fixed objects above their heads in order to keep them awake. Additionally, interrogations in both incidents involved the use of physical violence, including kicking, beating, and the use of "compliance blows" which involved striking the [prisoners] legs with the [interrogators] knees. In both cases, blunt force trauma to the legs was implicated in the deaths. In one case, a pulmonary embolism developed as a consequence of the blunt force trauma, and in the other case pre-existing coronary artery disease was complicated by the blunt force trauma.

Seven years after the Bush Administration effectively set aside the Geneva Conventions, declaring they were not relevant to US detentions from Guantanamo Bay to Camp Bagram to CIA "black sites" in North Africa and Eastern Europe, five years after Abu Ghraib, here are the documents establishing not only that detainees were tortured and, yes, murdered. Here is the evidence that US Government officials sanctioned the renditions and "enhanced interrogations" and that they were willing to lie to cover up the programme they had authorised.

It was with a sense of expectation that I have just turned to the headlines in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times of London. And here is what I found: nothing. I cannot find the story in any "mainstream" US or British newspaper this morning.

Full credit to CNN. And full credit to Harper's, Mother Jones and The Raw Story because, without outlets such as these, "ghost detainees" --- and what happens to them --- would remain, well, ghosts.

Afghanistan: Karzai Talks Back to Washington

Morning Update (6:10 a.m. GMT; 1:10 a.m. Washington): Afghan President Hamid Karzai (pictured), trying to counter US Government criticism of his leadership, has offered a conciliatory line on CNN:

U.S. forces will not be able to leave soon in Afghanistan because the task is not over. We have to defeat terrorism. We'll have to enable Afghanistan to stand on its own feet. We'll have to enable Afghanistan to be able to defend itself and protect for its security.

Then, the United States can leave and, at that time, the Afghan people will give them plenty of flowers and gratitude and send them safely back home.

Beyond the headline, it should be noted that Karzai was less than effusive about the proposed US troop surge, "Any addition of troops must have a purposeful objective that the Afghan people would agree with." He said that the new American forces should be placed on the border and in the fields fighting the drug trade rather than in Afghan villages.

And Karzai maintained his criticism of the US military's killing of civilians:

These activities are seriously undermining the confidence of the Afghan people in the joint struggle we have against terrorism and undermining their hopeful future. We'll continue to be a friend. We'll continue to be an ally. But Afghanistan deserves respect and a better treatment.

The Afghan President played down any responsibility for corruption, which the Obama Administration has increasingly attributed to Karzai's negligence or misrule. ""Sure, corruption in the Afghan government is as much there as in any other Third World country," he said. ""Suddenly this country got so much money coming from the West, suddenly so many Afghans came from all over the world to participate. Suddenly there were projects -- suddenly there was this poverty that turned into some sort form of prosperity for this country."

Mr Obama's World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (11 February)

Latest Post: US Engagement with Iran: Transcript of President Ahmadinejad’s Speech
Breaking News: Attacks in Afghanistan

Mr Obama's World Today: Uncertain

Evening Update (8:45 p.m.): The US Government will send a delegation next week to the six-party talks in Moscow on North Korean disarmament.

4:40 p.m. Marc Lynch of Foreign Policy notes the story that almost all media have missed today:  the visit by Chinese President Hu Jintao to Saudi Arabia

4:25 p.m. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry has said that President Obama and Pakistani President Asif Zardari have spoken by phone, ageeing to start addressing problems in the region with a "holistic strategy".

Afternoon Update (3:30 p.m.): A spike in violence from bombings and attacks today. In addition to the deaths in Afghanistan, a provincial minister has been killed by a roadside bomb in northwest Pakistan. Bombs in Iraq have killed at least eight people, while gunmen have slain several others, including a senior engineer and a prominent local football player.

US envoy Richard Holbrooke has visited northwest Pakistan to view a Pakistani military installation. As with his talks with political leaders on Tuesday, Holbrooke would say no more than that he was on a "listening" tour.



11:35 a.m. The Russians really are playing this hand well on Afghanistan. Offering co-operation but also ensuring control and thus oversight of Moscow's interest, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, amidst meetings with a senior US diplomat, that Russian military aircraft could assist with the supply effort.

11:25 a.m. During a trip to Iraq on Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, ""We look positively on the slogan that Obama raised in the elections. The world has really changed. If the American administration wants to keep up with the changes, this will be happy news." (cross-posted from US Engagement with Iran thread)

9:30 a.m. A revealing bit of information that did not make it into the morning papers: "A senior American diplomat will hold talks with Russian officials on Tuesday about opening new supply routes across Russian territory to NATO forces in Afghanistan, the U.S. embassy said."

The news indicates how serious the supply situation for Afghanistan has become, with the closure of the Pakistan routes and the threatened shutdown of the US airbase in Kyrgyzstan. And it shows how dependent Washington has become on Moscow's goodwill for a solution, which in turn has shaped the encouragement of President Obama and Vice President Biden for closer co-operation with the Russians.

8:45 a.m. Meanwhile in Pakistan.... In another sign that the Obama Administration is reviewing its options carefully before making any strategic decisions, envoy Richard Holbrooke limited his comments after meetings with Pakistani officials to, "[I was here] to listen and learn the ground realities of this critically important country".

In contrast, the priority of President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani was clear: Give Us Money. Their recogition of "the importance of enhanced cooperation in defense and intelligence sharing" was followed by a request to Washington to "expedite" billions of dollars in aid.

7:55 a.m. The New York Times also has a shrewd reading of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's criticism of Vice President Joe Biden,  which we noted yesterday. Al-Maliki's response to Biden's complaints about the lack of Iraqi political and economic reform were offered during a visit to Baghdad by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

The French, as all 2003 critics of "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" will recall, have had extensive economic interests in Iraq. Al-Maliki's comments, however, are not just a reach-out for investment for Paris; they signal Iraq's wish to move away from perceived political dependence on, even subservience to, Washington.

7:35 a.m. On the eve of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's trip to Asia, an interesting insight into Administration strategy on China in The New York Times.

"Senior Administration officials", probably from the State Department, tell the Times, "The Obama administration plans to realign the United States’ relationship with China by putting more emphasis on climate change, energy and human rights, widening the focus beyond the economic concerns of the Bush years." By going for environmental issues rather than risking economic confrontation, the US can then seek leverage on political concerns: "A broader relationship with the Chinese could create opportunities for collaboration — not only on a response to the global economic crisis, but also on the environment and on security issues like the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs."

You may have noticed, however, the troublesome phrase in the spin. "Human rights"? Is Washington really going to press issues such as Chinese control of Tibet and jailing of dissidents?

The balancing act was demonstrated on Tuesday when State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told CNN, ""We are disturbed that prominent Chinese human rights activist Huang Qi remains in detention. We call on the Chinese government to release Mr. Huang as soon as possible."

7 a.m. Repeating the latest in the battle within the Obama Administration over Afghanistan strategy. Countering President Obama's attempt to take more time through an inter-agency review, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has declared, ""I think that there is a realization that some decisions have to be made ... before the strategic review is completed. [Obama] has several options in front of him."

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, joined in the pressure on Obama. US military commanders "had this request out for many months and those working through the request recognize that the sooner the better with respect to this. I'm hopeful that we can get them there as soon as absolutely possible, but, again, that's a decision for the president of the United States, not for me."

Meanwhile, the US and Canada kept up the pressure on Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Mullen said in Ottawa on Tuesday, "As we look at the challenges that we have in 2009-2010 ... I think the lack of governance tied to the corruption that exists (in Afghanistan), is going to be the number one challenge that we have."

Morning Update (6:45 a.m. GMT; 1:45 a.m. Washington): Another day focused on the economy. President Obama's economic stimulus package moves from the Senate, where it passed yesterday, to the House of Representatives.

"A senior US official" has told CNN that American satellite photography shows possible preparations for a North Korean missile launch. Telemetry equipment is being assembled at the launch site, although there is no sign yet of a missile being moved. The last launch from the location, in 2006, was of a long-range Taepodong-2 missile, which flew for 40 seconds before crashing.

The US Government's reaction has been measured, focusing on diplomatic engagement with Pyongyang. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said on Tuesday:

Well, since the first time that they launched the missile, it flew for a few minutes before crashing, the range of the Taepodong-2 remains to be seen. So far, it's very short. I'm not going to get into intelligence reports, but it would be nice if North Korea would focus on getting positive messages across to the -- to its negotiating partners about verification and moving forward with the denuclearization.