June or July? – Moon of Alabama

May 20, 2005

June or July?

There is an Associated Press message running on the tickers right now about Iran Said to Be Smuggling Nuclear Matter.

A critical read immediately debunks the story. But don´t expect any editor to do a critical read before publishing this mess.

The AP’s leade is this:

Iran is circumventing international export bans on sensitive dual-use materials by smuggling graphite and a graphite compound that can be used to make conventional and nuclear weapons, an Iranian dissident and a senior diplomat said Friday.

What is that black stuff in your pencil? Right, it is graphite. The most important industrial use of graphite is not pencil production, but gray cast iron. Something any industrialized or industrializing economy will need in decent ton volumes to fabricate basic machinery.

Graphite is easy to make from coal and costs between US$ 250 to US$ 2000 per ton. At this price it can not be really scarce one would think. Is it dangerous "dual-use" stuff? AP says so:

With most countries adhering to international agreements banning the sale of such "dual-use" materials to Tehran, Iran has been forced to buy it on the black market, Iranian exile Alireza Jafarzadeh told The Associated Press – allegations confirmed by a senior diplomat familiar with Iran’s covert nuclear activities.

But graphite is not even mentioned in the "Guidelines for Transfers of Nuclear-Related Dual-Use Equipment, Materials, Software and Related Technology", the official "dual-use" list of the IAEA’s registered "Nuclear Supplier Countries". Graphite does not need to be smuggled. It can be produced or purchased by anyone, anywhere, without any limit, in any grade needed.

So who are the folks dropping this meme through AP? Alireza Jafarzadeh is the FOX news "independent Iran analyst" and member of the MEK (MKO) and spokes man of the "National Council of Resistance of Iran". Even someone like neocon archangel Michael Leeden thinks these are insane folks. Human Rights Watch calls MEK a cult. Even U.N. foe John

Bolton said he believed that MEK "qualifies as a terrorist organization according to our criteria." But he added that he did not think the official label had "prohibited us from getting information from them. And I certainly don’t have any inhibition about getting information about what’s going on in Iran from whatever source we can find that we deem reliable."

Now please guess, and don´t have any inhibition – who might be the "senior diplomat" cited by AP?

That diplomat is careful talking:

The diplomat, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of his position, said Iran also may be interested in acquiring specially heat-resistant "nuclear-grade graphite" that can be used as moderators to slow down the fission process in reactors generating energy.

While Iran does not now have reactors using such moderators, it insists it has the future right to all aspects of peaceful nuclear technology.

Neither Jafarzadeh nor the diplomat could say how much graphite Iran had imported and over what period of time.

Graphite, in all grades needed (and please, what is "nuclear-grade graphite" – does graphite explode?), is manufactured in hundreds or thousands of tons per year around the world. The AP "sources", a spokes man of a terrorist cult and an anonymous senior diplomat from an unknown country do not know if Iran even imported a pencil, a US$ 200 worth ton of graphite for casting machinery or whatever.

But AP puts this bullshit, manufactured by one unreliable terrorist cult source and barely supported by an anonymous "senior diplomat" on the ticker and by now Google News links 165 current news items for a search on "graphite Iran".

So will they start bombing Iran in June or in July? When will the "public" be prepared?

Posted by b on May 20, 2005 at 23:06 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Excellent post, Bernhard. This is such a good dissection of this BS. Why are so-called journalists being paid to pump out that crap when you are not being paid to put it in plain English? I am rather anxious about the transparent efforts to fabricate a reason to attack Iran.

Posted by: maxcrat | May 21 2005 0:23 utc | 1

Why not get it straight from the horse’s mouth?:
Condi in San Francisco
Should be an interesting reception.

Posted by: biklett | May 21 2005 0:38 utc | 2

The art of the possible. Iraq was do-able. From here on in, it gets tougher. Too tough for America. Expect lots of bluster from the usual sources, but they have pushed this as far as they can go. Not June, not July.
This is facinating stuff though, in the lead-up to the treason trials of “senior diplomats”.

Posted by: DM | May 21 2005 1:05 utc | 3

i agree with dm
they cannot & wll not attack iran directly. the iranian armed forces would wipe the u s forces halfway ober the middle east into central asia
their soldiers have neither the stomach nor the strength to do battle with the iranians not today & not tommorrow
the internal opposition to the iranian leadership is too weak to make capable allies for an american intervention – it would on the contrary bring those from the margins closer to to the leadership
they are losing in iraq – how would they cope with 200 divisions of the iranian army
the israelis also will not interfere though they would dearly love to – but they too do not have the physical force to confront the iranians – no the iranian leadership will arrive at an amiable concordance with the americans
this is all just vauedeville
north korea & kim jong il – well that is another apple altogether

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 21 2005 1:19 utc | 4

I’ll go with The New Yorker’s predictions of June. Ruling out reliance solely upon overstretched ground troops, how does one wage war? Especially when the US waged war from the air rather than the ground for much of the 90’s; is already using depleted uranium weaponry in Iraq; has already justified the use of tactical nukes; is already numbing the electorate to the term ‘nuclear option’ and reintroducing the concept of USAF weaponizing of space; and basing accusations against Iran on their having nuclear weapons rather than their having nationalized their oil? And besides they can always replenish those troops with a draft [which must have a justifying crisis to precede it, like deliberately putting the Kitty Hawk in harms way, say, in range of a few sunburn missiles; or worse].

Posted by: gylangirl | May 21 2005 2:04 utc | 5

“they cannot & wll not attack iran directly. the iranian armed forces would wipe the u s forces halfway ober the middle east into central asia”
No way. Are you kidding? America armed forces rock. Flat out kill.
I’d say unless Iran leadership supplicates before U.S. power, the Americans, perhaps by Israeli surrogate, will bomb. This is obvious.
More obvious is the need by Bush for a high-profile “terrorist” attack in the U.S., preferably soon.

Posted by: slothrop | May 21 2005 2:32 utc | 6

“how would they cope with 200 divisions of the iranian army”?
With nukes of course. Far more efficient than that gas.
They’d be crazy to do it — but then it was crazy to occupy Iraq.
In any case, Iran has been on the hit list since before Gulf II:
BBC report from 2002
Bush would be terribly terribly sorry, but as all diplomatic and other channels of persuasion have failed and as they have, bla, bla, bla…

Posted by: BarfHead | May 21 2005 5:45 utc | 7

They always forget that two can play that game.
Good morning, Ameeeeeerica.

Posted by: Lupin | May 21 2005 5:52 utc | 8

@slothrop: which northern city do you suppose will be the target this time? New York, for not swallowing the GOP story hook, line, and sinker? Chicago (better not be nuclear, or they’ll lose the support of the midwest instead of gaining it)? Seattle, for being resolutely blue? You can be sure that they aren’t planning for Florida or Texas…

Posted by: Blind Misery | May 21 2005 5:59 utc | 9

Iran Policy Committee: Pentagon mouthpiece, Israeli ally, MEK supporter

Posted by: Nugget | May 21 2005 6:48 utc | 10

Nuclear grade graphite probably is a technical term for graphite in a certain purety or otherwise suitable for nuclear power plants. A google search yielded a buckload of material science reports.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | May 21 2005 9:42 utc | 11

All BS aside you may find it interesting that wwww.tradeports.com (international events section) has the odds of an overt US airstrike on Iran in June 2005 at only 4%. This site is usually spot on. Watch it closely.

Posted by: Dismayed | May 21 2005 10:04 utc | 12

Hmmm … the neocons desires are beyond the current military capabilities, me thinks … they continue to feed ‘stories’ and prepare the ‘ground’ i.e the media and therefore public perceptions for action against Iran and Syria both …
However, thier clearly articulated strategic aims were based on a decisive and ‘clean’ conquest and consolidation of Iraq …
Materiel resources are being exhausted at an unsupportable rate based on allocated expenditures, yet most importantly of all is the imminent inability to maintain troop levels due to accelerating and sustained reduced re-enlistment rates compounded by sustained failure to meet target recruiting levels …
A suitably manufactured pretext such as a new ‘Gulf of Tonkin incident’ or framing/tricking the Iranians into shooting down a civilian airliner would probably suffice re the re-introduction of the draft … ready to be activtaed at 75 days notice IIRC …
Without Iraq as a consolidated ‘secure’ base of operations there is simply nil ability to project strategic ground forces into Iran or Syria without extreme undue risk …
There’s also been the issue of the progressive diminishing over time even amongst the Arab ‘client states’ for further direct or even indirect support of US military ‘adventures’ in the ME …
The most likely scenario in the next 12 months is possible ‘incursions’ into Syria to both provoke Syria and maintain a pretext for the continued presence of the occupation of Iraq …
Iran is likely to become the new Cuba of the ME if the administration can manage it, with possible periodic air or missile strikes with threatening activities on virtually all its borders from US and proxy forces … if Iraq could be stabilised (extremely unlikely) then instability operations within Iran could be conducted concurrently with overt political/economic/military pressures …
Re North Korea (DPRK) the greatest risk there is the unification of North and South under a paternal China with the ‘new’ Korea nuclear armed (highly likely they’ve already got 6-8 nukes and they have massive conventional and capable forces(DPRK)) and ‘kicking’ the US military out of South Korea (non-militarily) …
The US is not concerned about Korea itself but it’s potential loss of a presence militarily on the peninsula and the loss of any chance of ever acquiring the ability to station forces on the Chinese border (i.e. North Korean soil) therefore ceding the South China Sea and environs (including untapped resources) to an emergent (politically, economically & militarily) China …
The US would lose a military proxy force re legitimisation of future adventures, the South Korean military, whilst also risking the re-arming of Japan and therefore the likely loss of dominance of the Japanese government/foreign policy as the Japanese would probably be sorely tempted to regress to thier historically ‘natural’ (sic) incliniation to militarism, and therefore US independence, probably also leading to Japanese requests for the ‘removal’ of US forces (Japan) also …
my 0.2 cents

Posted by: Outraged | May 21 2005 10:06 utc | 13

IIRC, graphite-moderated plants don’t make much plutonium, if any. You need heavy-water reactors. This is bullshit on so many levels.

Posted by: Tim H. | May 21 2005 15:03 utc | 14

What would any such major” incidents” or restoring the draft do to the economy, already apparently teetering
on the brink?
Are you people saying Bush is insane?
…Wait, don’t answer that.

Posted by: Buster | May 21 2005 16:15 utc | 15

graphite-moderated plants don’t make much plutonium, if any. You need heavy-water reactors.
So the Iranians could be really trying to produce nuclear power as a primary function-with weapons being a secondary objective? Sounds like what a sane, industrializing nation would do.

Posted by: doug r | May 21 2005 16:19 utc | 16

It’s actually sort of amusing, watching the Bushies waving their arms in the air and shouting “look, Mom, no hands” while the wheels are coming off the tricycle. I have been impressed by two things: (1) the constant drumbeat of stories demonizing both Syria and Iran and laying the foundation for an attack on either, and (2) the surprisingly fast evisceration of the U.S. military. Simply put, Iraq has wrecked the US Army. As much as the neocons would love to take out Iran and Syria, the United States no longer possesses the military ability to do so. Iran is too big, and the targets too scattered, for a mere air war to do. Syria is more plausible, but I don’t think anyone has any illusions about the guerilla war that would start. For one thing, it would endanger Israel because Hamas would have no reason whatsoever not to go nuclear (if you’ll excuse the partial pun).
Meanwhile, events are accelerating even as the U.S. ability to respond collapses. By embracing Karimov (a true thug if ever there was one) so enthusiastically, the United States has given a huge boost to the opposition in Uzbekistan. The events of the past week, as mysterious as they are, are I suspect only the tip of that particular iceberg. And an overt “radical” Islamic takeover of Uzbekistan would have huge geopolitical implications, including convincing Russia that the US is utterly incapable of maintaining order in Central Asia, with all that that implies. This is like watching a train wreck where the film is moving faster and faster. I just wish I wasn’t a passenger.

Posted by: Aigin | May 21 2005 17:38 utc | 17

consistent with every stupid action the bush administration has done – yes perhaps it would be consistent – for them to attack iran
but even the school bully for all his force knows his vulnerabilities in front of a superior force & that is what iran possesses
they attacked iraq because it had been diplomatically comprimised, it was weakened socially & economically by the sanctions – & for all the bellicocity of the sovereign president of iraq, saddam hussein – his once majestic military force had been fundamentally altered. this is to take into account that they knew they would never be fighting the war the americans wanted but the one they are fighting now in which the iraquis are winning – every day
the united states is just digging the pit deeper – that is all
i cannot conceivably see how hey would intervene in iran even through proxy – israeli – what do the iranians have to lose by opening up fronts everywhere which is what would happen & i imagine the pentagon knows that
an attack on syria i can believe – because it is already being destabilised, weakend by attacks on its frontiers & it too is a weakened state but even that would light fires elsewhere that the us forces could not respond too
outraged’s perception of a constant & insitent level of active animosity as it uses against cuba is more likely
& slothrop – remember your mao my friend – the atomic bomb is a paper tiger

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 21 2005 20:11 utc | 18

After some thought on this, I am sure that the U.S. will launch an air attack on Iran by the themselfs or by the Israeli proxy.
This not for some foreign policy or proliferation thought, but for the U.S. public and for the consolidation of interior powers.
Winning or loosing in Iraq or Iran is secondary to get 60 devote republican senators elected and to move the constitutional legal questions back to 1996 by selecting the appropriate supreme court justices.

Posted by: b | May 21 2005 20:36 utc | 19

b
air attac would lead necessarily to the movement of land forces by the iranians into iraq – the iranians would be stupid to do otherwise
as pepe escobar sd last year they are very prepared for such an american action & that i regarded as the reason it would not happen

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 21 2005 20:41 utc | 20

and to move the constitutional legal questions back to 1996
I have a feeling “1996” is a typo. Am I right?

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | May 22 2005 3:00 utc | 21

Tim H, actually graphite-moderated piles can be used to manufacture considerable plutonium. I do believe that the piles located at Hanford from the Manhattan project were the principal source of plutonium for the Manhattan Project’s plutonium weapons. Of course, the graphite used were not control rods but massive blocks of graphite used to house the uranium feedstock pushed through the piles. The Soviet reactors like Chernobyl worked on a similar principle.
So, the intelligence report leaked into the press is wrong on the details of the use of the graphite, which alone makes the whole leak suspect. Besides, the Iranians are supposed to be pursuing an enriched uranium weapons program (all those centrifuges) which would obviate the need to pursue a plutonium program. Obviously, the thugs which inhabit our defense establishment have decided to go for overkill and claim the Iranians are pursuing every fissile material under the sun, just so they can cover all the bases. I’m surprised that they haven’t claimed the Iranians are trying to get their hands on dilithium crystals at this point.

Posted by: PrahaPartizan | May 22 2005 5:11 utc | 22

About the draft:
Even if Bush decided tomorrow to have a draft, the US army couldn’t be increased overnight. Those draftees have to be called up, equipped, trained and moved to wherever they are needed. Even under the most optimistic assumptions, that would take many months.
I don’t think a useful draftee force could be deployed in 2005.

Posted by: khr | May 22 2005 10:52 utc | 23

@khr
re the draft, certainly, however, for the very reasons you cite planners have to implement it (the draft) as early as possible (once a decision is made) to compensate for the increasingly critical shortage of sufficient numbers combat infantrymen …
The numbers of combat infantrymen are being bled white by failures to re-up (re-enlist) compounded by successive months of failure to meet recruiting targets re new enlistees … not to mention tens of thousands of casualties (non-KIA).
This situation is further exacerbated by an inordinate percentage of NCO’s who are’nt re-enlisting either … lose the NCO Corps committment and the ground troops battlefield effectiveness is finished, not only now, but for many years into the future …

Posted by: Outraged | May 22 2005 11:05 utc | 24

@Outraged – not just the NCO´s are slipping away.
LA Times has a long story about Officers Plot Exit Strategy

Many young lieutenants and captains, key leaders in combat, are deciding against Army careers in light of the open-ended war on terrorism.

But for Iran, a war from air and maybe some special ops may be enough for a while – no draft needed until the following catastrophy is obvious.

Posted by: b | May 22 2005 11:42 utc | 25

The bombing won’t start until next year. I expect the serious war drums to start in September- after all, you don’t introduce new products in August.
This is my message to all the Democrats who think that the stuff going on today is going to affect the ’06 election. No- bankruptcy, social security, the fillibuster, radical judges, all will be forgotten when we go to war with Iran.

Posted by: Brian Hurt | May 23 2005 14:04 utc | 26

They can’t wait for next year either. They’ll need the bombers to protect the retreat from Iraq then. And if they touch Iran the Iranians will retaliate against US forces in Iraq. They’d be crazy not to. You think it’s bad now? Wait ’til the Iranians have no reason to stay out of Iraq.

Posted by: Colman | May 23 2005 14:57 utc | 27

I’m surprised that they haven’t claimed the Iranians are trying to get their hands on dilithium crystals at this point.
Heh, can’t be long now. Wait until the crazies start waving their arms over the fact that Iran doesn’t really have to import nuclear material because they have their own uranium deposits right there at home.

Posted by: natasha | May 24 2005 16:51 utc | 28

Back to Main