Myth Surrounding Alleged Iranian Nuclear Facility Begins to Unravel
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/irans_parchin_nuclear_myth_begins_to_unr
avel_20150924/
Posted on Sep 24, 2015
By Gareth Porter, Middle East Eye
Ronald Zak / AP
This piece first appeared at Middle East Eye.
For well over three years, heavy doses of propaganda have created a myth
about a purported steel cylinder for testing explosives located on a site at
Iran's Parchin military testing reservation. Iran was refusing to allow the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect the site while it
sought to hide its past nuclear weapons-related work, according to that
storyline.
Now Iran has agreed to allow the IAEA to visit the site at Parchin and
environmental samples have already been collected at the site. However, the
politically charged tale of the bomb test chamber of Parchin is beginning to
unravel. IAEA director general Yukiya Amano entered the building in which
the explosives chamber had supposedly been located on Monday and announced
afterward that he found "no equipment" in the building.
That is surely a major story, in light of how much has been made of the
alleged presence of the chamber at that location. But you may have missed
that news, unless you happened to read the story by Jonathan Tirone of
Bloomberg Business News, who was the only journalist for a significant news
outlet who chose to lead with the story in his coverage of Amano's Monday
visit.
The rest of the news media buried that fact far down in their stories,
focusing almost entirely on the fact that the Iranians have been allowed to
physically gather environmental samples at the site under the gaze of IAEA
technicians rather than IAEA inspectors carrying out that function.
The main storyline associated with the purported bomb cylinder since early
2012 has been that Iran has been removing evidence from the site for years
in anticipation of an eventual IAEA inspection in order to hide the evidence
of past experiments using the purported chamber. But the full story of that
mysterious chamber makes it clear that it was highly dubious from the start.
The first description of an explosive chamber at Parchin appeared in an IAEA
report published in early November 2011. But less than two weeks after the
story of the cylinder was reported in the media, Associated Press reporter
George Jahn published a report that an official of an unidentified state had
"cited intelligence from his home country, saying it appears that Iran is
trying to cover its tracks by sanitising the site and removing any evidence
of nuclear research and development".
The official provided an "intelligence summary" from which Jahn quoted:
"Freight trucks, special haulage vehicles and cranes were seen entering and
leaving" the site on 4-5 November 2011, it said, and "some equipment and
dangerous materials were removed from the site".
Disputed Intelligence
The purpose of that language was clearly to suggest that Iran had actually
removed the cylinder and the nuclear materials that it had been testing. If
true, it would have been very incriminating evidence of Iran's nuclear
deception. But there was a problem with that claim. Officials of two other
IAEA member states that were obviously following the aerial photography of
the Parchin site closely denied that the story being peddled to Jahn by the
unnamed state was true.
It was true that there was more activity than normal at the site on those
days, they told Jahn, but nothing resembling the activities claimed by the
unidentified state's "intelligence summary". One of those two countries
denying the story was clearly the United States. Pentagon spokesman Captain
John Kirby told Jahn he had "seen nothing to indicate that those concerns
are warranted".
The episode of the AP story begs the obvious question: Why was the state
that could not be named so intent on planting a false story of Iranian
removal of the purported cylinder? The obvious purpose of such a story would
be to prepare government and public opinion for a possible IAEA visit to the
site in the future, and the subsequent discovery that there was nothing
incriminating at the site.
That, in turn, indicates that the state in question was the same one that
had provided the original story of the explosive cylinder to the IAEA and
that it already knew that no cylinder would be found there because the
original story had been a fabrication.
Israeli-Supplied Documents
The IAEA member state that had provided the information about a purported
bomb cylinder was never identified by the IAEA. But IAEA director-general
Mohamed El Baradei asserts in his memoirs that in the summer of 2009 Israel
turned over to the IAEA a number of intelligence documents purporting to
show that Iran had carried out nuclear weapons work "until at least 2007,"
most of which consisted of purported Iranian official documents whose
authenticity had been questioned by some of the agency's technical experts.
El Baradei refused to bow to diplomatic pressures from Israel's allies,
coordinated by the head of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission, to publish a
compendium of those documents, including the claim in an intelligence report
of the Parchin explosives cylinder. The Israelis and the Obama
administration had to wait until Amano succeeded him and agreed to do
exactly that.
The episode of the AP story isn't the only evidence that the unidentified
state had concocted an intelligence document on Parchin that was a complete
falsehood. In August 2012, an IAEA report stated that the agency had
acquired the satellite imagery available on the Parchin site for the entire
period from February 2005 to January 2012. The report revealed that the
imagery showed "virtually no activity at or near the building housing the
containment vessel" during that entire period. The imagery clearly suggested
that Iran had not been using the site for any sensitive activities, much
less the activities suggested by the IAEA in its report, during the seven
years, nor had they engaged in any cleanup of the site.
And an earlier episode sheds further light on the issue. In 2004, John
Bolton, then the administration's Iran policymaker, leaked satellite imagery
of sites at Parchin that had features someone believed might be high
explosives testing facilities. After a few months of bullying by Bolton, the
IAEA asked to visit Parchin. Iran not only agreed to an inspection in
February 2005 but allowed the IAEA to choose any five sites in any one of
the four Parchin quadrants - after the inspection team's arrival - and take
environmental samples anywhere at the sites. And in November 2005, after El
Baradei requested a second inspection, Iran again gave the IAEA the choice
of five more sites at which to take samples.
The significance of those two 2005 IAEA inspections is not merely that the
environmental samples all came back negative. More important, Iran would
never have allowed the IAEA to choose to take environmental samples anywhere
it chose at Parchin if it had carried out nuclear-weapons related
experiments as claimed later by the unidentified state.
The Story Continues
Beginning in spring 2012 and continuing right up to the Vienna round of Iran
nuclear negotiations last summer, the IAEA, Western diplomats and David
Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security generated
many dozens of stories about Iran's "stonewalling" the IAEA on Parchin while
it sought to remove evidence of its purported nuclear-related testing at the
site. Those stories invariably used the term "sanitising" - the same word
the Israeli official used in passing on the false story to AP.
Those stories were just as dishonest as the original Israeli story because
the IAEA and Western diplomats assigned to it know very well that there is
no way to remove all traces of nuclear material from a site. In 2013,
Stephan Vogt, the head of the IAEA's environmental sample laboratory,
declared in an interview: "You cannot get rid of them by cleaning, you
cannot dilute them to the extent that we will not be able to pick them up."
Strangely, however, even after that interview was published, the Parchin
stories continued as if Vogt had not revealed the impossibility of
"sanitising" a site that had held nuclear material.
We are now only a few weeks away from the release of the environmental
sampling results at Parchin. It will be amusing to this writer to see how
the governments and news media who pushed the Parchin myth manage that
story.
Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the
2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published
Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.
http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
Myth Surrounding Alleged Iranian Nuclear Facility Begins to Unravel
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/irans_parchin_nuclear_myth_begins_to_unr
avel_20150924/
Posted on Sep 24, 2015
By Gareth Porter, Middle East Eye
Ronald Zak / AP
This piece first appeared at Middle East Eye.
For well over three years, heavy doses of propaganda have created a myth
about a purported steel cylinder for testing explosives located on a site at
Iran's Parchin military testing reservation. Iran was refusing to allow the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect the site while it
sought to hide its past nuclear weapons-related work, according to that
storyline.
Now Iran has agreed to allow the IAEA to visit the site at Parchin and
environmental samples have already been collected at the site. However, the
politically charged tale of the bomb test chamber of Parchin is beginning to
unravel. IAEA director general Yukiya Amano entered the building in which
the explosives chamber had supposedly been located on Monday and announced
afterward that he found "no equipment" in the building.
That is surely a major story, in light of how much has been made of the
alleged presence of the chamber at that location. But you may have missed
that news, unless you happened to read the story by Jonathan Tirone of
Bloomberg Business News, who was the only journalist for a significant news
outlet who chose to lead with the story in his coverage of Amano's Monday
visit.
The rest of the news media buried that fact far down in their stories,
focusing almost entirely on the fact that the Iranians have been allowed to
physically gather environmental samples at the site under the gaze of IAEA
technicians rather than IAEA inspectors carrying out that function.
The main storyline associated with the purported bomb cylinder since early
2012 has been that Iran has been removing evidence from the site for years
in anticipation of an eventual IAEA inspection in order to hide the evidence
of past experiments using the purported chamber. But the full story of that
mysterious chamber makes it clear that it was highly dubious from the start.
The first description of an explosive chamber at Parchin appeared in an IAEA
report published in early November 2011. But less than two weeks after the
story of the cylinder was reported in the media, Associated Press reporter
George Jahn published a report that an official of an unidentified state had
"cited intelligence from his home country, saying it appears that Iran is
trying to cover its tracks by sanitising the site and removing any evidence
of nuclear research and development".
The official provided an "intelligence summary" from which Jahn quoted:
"Freight trucks, special haulage vehicles and cranes were seen entering and
leaving" the site on 4-5 November 2011, it said, and "some equipment and
dangerous materials were removed from the site".
Disputed Intelligence
The purpose of that language was clearly to suggest that Iran had actually
removed the cylinder and the nuclear materials that it had been testing. If
true, it would have been very incriminating evidence of Iran's nuclear
deception. But there was a problem with that claim. Officials of two other
IAEA member states that were obviously following the aerial photography of
the Parchin site closely denied that the story being peddled to Jahn by the
unnamed state was true.
It was true that there was more activity than normal at the site on those
days, they told Jahn, but nothing resembling the activities claimed by the
unidentified state's "intelligence summary". One of those two countries
denying the story was clearly the United States. Pentagon spokesman Captain
John Kirby told Jahn he had "seen nothing to indicate that those concerns
are warranted".
The episode of the AP story begs the obvious question: Why was the state
that could not be named so intent on planting a false story of Iranian
removal of the purported cylinder? The obvious purpose of such a story would
be to prepare government and public opinion for a possible IAEA visit to the
site in the future, and the subsequent discovery that there was nothing
incriminating at the site.
That, in turn, indicates that the state in question was the same one that
had provided the original story of the explosive cylinder to the IAEA and
that it already knew that no cylinder would be found there because the
original story had been a fabrication.
Israeli-Supplied Documents
The IAEA member state that had provided the information about a purported
bomb cylinder was never identified by the IAEA. But IAEA director-general
Mohamed El Baradei asserts in his memoirs that in the summer of 2009 Israel
turned over to the IAEA a number of intelligence documents purporting to
show that Iran had carried out nuclear weapons work "until at least 2007,"
most of which consisted of purported Iranian official documents whose
authenticity had been questioned by some of the agency's technical experts.
El Baradei refused to bow to diplomatic pressures from Israel's allies,
coordinated by the head of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission, to publish a
compendium of those documents, including the claim in an intelligence report
of the Parchin explosives cylinder. The Israelis and the Obama
administration had to wait until Amano succeeded him and agreed to do
exactly that.
The episode of the AP story isn't the only evidence that the unidentified
state had concocted an intelligence document on Parchin that was a complete
falsehood. In August 2012, an IAEA report stated that the agency had
acquired the satellite imagery available on the Parchin site for the entire
period from February 2005 to January 2012. The report revealed that the
imagery showed "virtually no activity at or near the building housing the
containment vessel" during that entire period. The imagery clearly suggested
that Iran had not been using the site for any sensitive activities, much
less the activities suggested by the IAEA in its report, during the seven
years, nor had they engaged in any cleanup of the site.
And an earlier episode sheds further light on the issue. In 2004, John
Bolton, then the administration's Iran policymaker, leaked satellite imagery
of sites at Parchin that had features someone believed might be high
explosives testing facilities. After a few months of bullying by Bolton, the
IAEA asked to visit Parchin. Iran not only agreed to an inspection in
February 2005 but allowed the IAEA to choose any five sites in any one of
the four Parchin quadrants - after the inspection team's arrival - and take
environmental samples anywhere at the sites. And in November 2005, after El
Baradei requested a second inspection, Iran again gave the IAEA the choice
of five more sites at which to take samples.
The significance of those two 2005 IAEA inspections is not merely that the
environmental samples all came back negative. More important, Iran would
never have allowed the IAEA to choose to take environmental samples anywhere
it chose at Parchin if it had carried out nuclear-weapons related
experiments as claimed later by the unidentified state.
The Story Continues
Beginning in spring 2012 and continuing right up to the Vienna round of Iran
nuclear negotiations last summer, the IAEA, Western diplomats and David
Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security generated
many dozens of stories about Iran's "stonewalling" the IAEA on Parchin while
it sought to remove evidence of its purported nuclear-related testing at the
site. Those stories invariably used the term "sanitising" - the same word
the Israeli official used in passing on the false story to AP.
Those stories were just as dishonest as the original Israeli story because
the IAEA and Western diplomats assigned to it know very well that there is
no way to remove all traces of nuclear material from a site. In 2013,
Stephan Vogt, the head of the IAEA's environmental sample laboratory,
declared in an interview: "You cannot get rid of them by cleaning, you
cannot dilute them to the extent that we will not be able to pick them up."
Strangely, however, even after that interview was published, the Parchin
stories continued as if Vogt had not revealed the impossibility of
"sanitising" a site that had held nuclear material.
We are now only a few weeks away from the release of the environmental
sampling results at Parchin. It will be amusing to this writer to see how
the governments and news media who pushed the Parchin myth manage that
story.
Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the
2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published
Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/popes_climate_push_is_raving_non
sense_without_population_control_20150925/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/popes_climate_push_is_raving_non
sense_without_population_control_20150925/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/popes_climate_push_is_raving_non
sense_without_population_control_20150925/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/forest_loss_and_land_degradation_fuel_cl
imate_crisis_20150925/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/forest_loss_and_land_degradation_fuel_cl
imate_crisis_20150925/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/forest_loss_and_land_degradation_fuel_cl
imate_crisis_20150925/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/the_kind_of_society_we_want_20150924/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/the_kind_of_society_we_want_20150924/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/the_kind_of_society_we_want_20150924/
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/wh_auden_complete_20150924/
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/wh_auden_complete_20150924/
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/wh_auden_complete_20150924/
http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://www.tru
thdig.com/about/advertising/http://www.truthdig.com/user_agreement/http://ww
w.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http://www.truthdig.com/about/comment_policy/
C 2015 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.hopstudios.com/
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?source=foll
owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+truthdight
tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
truthdig.com/connect
