Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 25, 2011

NYT Again Lies About WMD Claims

A piece by David Sanger and William Broad in today's New York Times asserts that: Watchdog Finds Evidence That Iran Worked on Nuclear Triggers

The world’s global nuclear inspection agency, frustrated by Iran’s refusal to answer questions, revealed for the first time on Tuesday that it possesses evidence that Tehran has conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that experts said could be used for only one purpose: setting off a nuclear weapon.
Tuesday’s report gave new details for all seven of the categories of allegations.
The report said it had asked Iran about evidence of “experiments involving the explosive compression of uranium deuteride to produce a short burst of neutrons” — the speeding particles that split atoms in two in a surge of nuclear energy.

Readers here will not be astonished to learn that the cited assertions in the article are completely false.

The IAEA does not claim to have found any evidence that Iran worked on nuclear triggers. Its recent report expresses, like every of its reports did in the past years, "concern about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities". There is no claim, none at all, in the report that the IAEA "possesses evidence" related to this. Sanger and Broad are pulling that from thin air.

The alleged uranium deuteride experiments claim comes from a much discussed 2009 article in the London Times. That one was likely based on fake documents presented by the U.S. to the IAEA on the infamous Laptop Of Death.

Nothing has changed at the NYT since the false Iraq Weapon of Mass Destruction claims. Yes, David Sanger and William Broad replaced Judith Miller and Michael Gordon and Iran replaced Iraq. But the scheme of making up false claims to further a war of aggression against a country Israel perceives as enemy is just the same.

Posted by b on May 25, 2011 at 6:50 UTC | Permalink


Yeah, now the IAEA is saying that the "Box on the Euphrates" probably was a nuclear plant. Funny what a big difference Baradaei's departure makes. The IAEA is now a poodle.

Posted by: alexno | May 25 2011 7:36 utc | 1

alexno [1]
ElBaradei the trojan ?

Posted by: denk | May 25 2011 10:25 utc | 2

small quibble about language. Sanger and Broad may be full of hot air. Or they may be pulling it out of thin air. Either will work and is true but not pulling from hot air.

The article is very good. How significant is NYT nowadays?

Posted by: Khalid | May 25 2011 12:43 utc | 3

@Khalid - thanks, corrected

Posted by: b | May 25 2011 14:43 utc | 4

glad to be of help. It would be quite ok by me if 3-5 are deleted. They are not germaine to the topic.

Posted by: Khalid | May 25 2011 16:20 utc | 5

Given that the Republican/right wing minions regularly diaparage the NYT as being 'liburul' (whether NYT is actually liberal can be debated. Certainly on issues relating to Israel it seems to lose its journalistic objectivity) is NYT really that influential with a Republican senate/congress (and a president whose foriegn policy is not that far from the Republican positions)? Just want to know if NYT is still important.

Posted by: Khalid | May 25 2011 16:23 utc | 6

The US economy rests, for some alarming part, on producing and selling at exorbitant prices, war matériel. Defense contracts, all that. UK I believe is second or first (per capita), but this is not about numbers.

So anybody, anywhere, possessing WMD, or accused of such, falsely or correctly - WMD is strange blanket term - is at the same time a competitor and an opportunity for more sales. The NYT times does nothing but support a huge industrial cartel. Some enemies are needed for the very lucrative business, and for some time now Iran is ‘it’ or amongst the ‘its’ ...

The contracts here:

Manufacturing is awarded to ‘poorer’, ‘red’ states, to support the declining, non ‘performing’ regions. The Army volunteers come from the same pool - struggling with no future and with a zeitgeist that is dependent on arms production, part of the same economic circuit and mindset.

The US holds the market, as it is responsible not only for (about) 50% of world arms production (actually I think it must be far more), and is top seller - about 40% or arms sales are from the US to others. So it sets the standards, the prices, the specs, performance, desirability, techs, and so on. (Second, btw, is Russia.)

Cutting the defense budget thus means throwing many red-state ppl into poverty - even a small slip in OK-paying jobs will cause havoc, ppl are living on the edge. It is a big bad problem for Republicans.

Posted by: Noirette | May 25 2011 17:59 utc | 7

Not sure I am seeing the link between NYT and the interests of the Red States or the Arms sales industry. Why would NYT support either. Israel aside, is NYT hawkish (ofcourse all of MiddleEast is part of 'Israeli interests' so that covers Iraq and Iran)?

Posted by: Khalid | May 25 2011 18:54 utc | 8

The renewed propaganda blitz against Iran and Syria raises a very interesting question, which may be the most important factor in international relations today.
What will Russia do? If it acts according to post-Soviet form it will sell out Syria for a ludicrously small price. We may believe that the US Empire is crumbling but the Russians appear to live in fear of it. Witness their successive abandonment of Iraq, Iran and Libya. Witness their failure to turn the South Ossetia aggression by Georgia into regime change in Tiflis. Witness their timidity in allowing NATO not only to push up to their borders (reneging on public pledges) but to install ABM systems along their western frontiers. Witness their patience as the US has polluted Central Asia with puppets and military bases.
In every case Russia has emerged from its negotiations with the west robbed almost unto nakedness. Now that Syria is clearly in the gun sights of the Empire what will Russia do?
If it calls the west's bluff and announces its support for Syrian independence, everything will be changed. The problem is that it is not only the weak-kneed and the Fifth Columnists in the Kremlin who are refusing to challenge the US and draw a 'line in the sand' there are also the long game strategists who see every apparent Imperial triumph as, in reality, another overstretch, weakening and sapping at the foundations of the Empire.
Sooner or later, though, simply to facilitate crisis, a power in Russia's position has to be ready to deal its enemy a bloody nose, or a swift kick, to humble it and to awaken its legion of foes into activity. A Russian Nyet over Syria, could swiftly rally an impressive list of supporters into reminding the allies of the USA that there are alternatives to doing what Uncle Sam wants.
One imagines that the countries which would respond most eagerly would include Iraq-desperate to rid itself of its unwanted invaders pretending to be guests- and Pakistan.

Posted by: bevin | May 25 2011 20:35 utc | 9

Who's ensconced between "The LAPTOP" and the Company tiny turlitzer, beneath?

Posted by: Buster | May 25 2011 22:52 utc | 10

re 2, the situation in Egypt is more complicated than that, denk. Baradei is not worth attacking.

The point here is that the new regime at the IAEA is servile to the US on all fronts.

Posted by: Alexno | May 26 2011 10:45 utc | 11

re 2, the situation in Egypt is more complicated than that, denk. Baradei is not worth attacking.

The point here is that the new regime at the IAEA is servile to the US on all fronts.

Posted by: Alexno | May 26 2011 10:45 utc | 12

The comments to this entry are closed.