SUNDAY, OCTOBER 02, 2005
Nuclear Ball In Pakistan's Court
K SUBRAHMANYAM
<snip>
Iran was engaged in this clandestine programme from 1987 to 2003, when a defector disclosed information about it to IAEA. If the Iranian objective was only enrichment for fuel purposes and not weapon acquisition, it could have carried out its programme openly with due notification to the IAEA.
[...]
===================
That's it eh?
The entire argument rests upon the shadowy shoulders of an unidentified "defector"?
I decided to use the tools at hand - Google, of course - to see how the "defector" story worked its way around the globe through the information spaces. Would a somewhat more solid story emerge?
Let's find out.
First, I did a search for the terms Iranian defector + iaea.
That produced interesting results; links to exciting tales of geopolitical skulduggery and Iranian perfidy such as Kenneth R. Timmerman's "Countdown to Crisis" website (a companion to his heavy breathing book about coming showdowns and other Armageddon-tastic language).
<http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=iaea+%2B+Iranian+defector&btnG=Go ogle+Search>
And there was also this grim editorial from the Boston Globe:
<http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2006/02/19/options_for_iran/>
<snip>
Recent pressure on Iran has come in diverse forms. The most obvious was the IAEA decision on Feb. 4 to report Iran to the UN Security Council if Iranian authorities do not comply with their obligations by March 6, when the IAEA governing board meets again. Tehran's gambit of defiance may also have been a reaction to the IAEA's showing Iranian officials material from a defector's laptop computer...
[...]
Next, I searched for "Iranian defector".
Surely, this would provide evidence about the relay race baton passed claims that a "defector" (with a laptop filled with damning info) had helped the IAEA learn the shocking truth. There was more Timmerman-esque hyperventilating but also this new wrinkle:
from...
<http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8531>
The Iranians were first confronted with the alleged Green Salt Project on January 27, and the IAEA Board issued its resolution on February 4.
The resolution did not "refer" Iran’s nuclear program to the Security Council for possible action, nor did it contain any mention of a military UF4 project.
[...]
Here's the link to the resolution:
<http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/international/20060204resolution.pdf>
Huh. Now that's curious, you'd think something as earth shattering (excuse the nuclear pun) as the uncovering of solid evidence - courtesy of that international man of mystery, the "Iranian Defector" - of a weapons progam would make its way into the IAEA's statement. And yet, and yet...
Perhaps the Asia Times'Kaveh L Afrasiabi can offer a new perspective:
<http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB03Ak04.html>
<snip>
The IAEA's quandary
Given a European resolution calling on the IAEA to refer Iran to the Security Council for possible sanctions, it merits our attention to examine the latest reports in the US media about the IAEA's new revelations suggesting an Iranian nuclear-weapons program.
According to a news article in the New York Times on Wednesday, the IAEA has "for the first time provided evidence directly suggesting that at least some of Iran's activities point to a military project". The timing of this finding couldn't have been more ideal as far as the anti-Iran forces within the IAEA are concerned. The article goes on to say that the IAEA, with "partial help" by US intelligence, has uncovered a "secretive Iranian entity called the Green Salt Project which worked on uranium processing, high explosives and a missile warhead design".
According to the IAEA report, the project "could have a military nuclear dimension and appears to have administrative interconnections". Furthermore, it cites a 15-page report given to Iran in the mid-1980s related to "fabrication of nuclear weapon components". That report has been put under the agency's seal.
What is curious about the newspaper report is that it is deliberately sketchy about the sources and nature of US intelligence given to the IAEA, confining itself to a passing statement that it stems from a "laptop seized in Iran".
[...]
Well, how about that?
Although there's been a lot of talk - from Olympia, Washington to Mumbai, India and back again - about a laptop, a defector (I picture him in an Armani suit, smoking quietly in a cafe in Vienna) and evidence so awful, so solid and so convincing even the departed Ayatollah Khomeini himself might scream j'accuse! there's actually been precious little evidence of this
evidence.
To twistingly paraphrase that master strategist, Donald, "the grappler" Rumsfeld - the absence of evidence is indeed the evidence of absence.
Finally, let's end our around the web tour with the IAEA itself:
When you review the documentation available from the group's informative Iran section -
<http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml>
You note the lack of laptops and defectors and other darkling things.
I suggest an alternative explanation for the thrust of K SUBRAHMANYAM's Times of India article: it was expedient, in the course of building a rhetorical case against Islamabad's actions, to drag the fog shrouded defector, the laptop hosted evidence and the rest of the bag of sleight-of-hand tricks up on stage yet again for another performance.
.d.
--------- Sì, il blog. È soltanto un giocattolo. Ma, è un giocattolo serio.