Iran: "We Lied!" -- not really

Naturally, the New York Times seized on this -- the story that an official in charge of Iran's nuclear program, Fereydoon Abbasi, has "admitted" that Iran occasionally tried to mislead on its nuclear program:

Iran's top atomic energy official said in an article published Thursday that because of foreign espionage, his government had sometimes provided false information to protect its nuclear program.

Note the crucial bit of missing information here, left out by the NY Times in order to spin this sentence as some sort of "confession" by Iran of having hidden nukes: WHO WHOM? TO WHOM has he said Iran provided false information - to the IAEA or to Western spies?

Because that's a real crucial bit of difference! Needless to explain: There's generally no obligation on a country to allow foreign spying, especially when its scientists are being assasinated.  However the NY Time's simply runs with the assumption that this official is saying "We lied to the IAEA because we're making nukes" rather than "We tried to mislead foreign intelligence agencies so they would not assasinate us". Go back and read it again, better yet read the original Arabian news report.  Or translate it. You won't see him saying "We lied TO THE IAEA because we're hiding nukes" Instead, he's referring to foreign intelligence agencies.  But that's not how the NY Times spins it.

The bottom line is, as much as the NY Times and friends would like to exploit these 2 sentences, there is still no evidence of any nuclear weapons program, and Iran has never diverted nuclear material for non-peaceful uses, and all of this is verified by regular, intensive IAEA inspections. So what precisely is it that Iran has been lying about to the IAEA? Because the IAEA would sure like to know.

Of course the NY Times has to raise the suspicions by referring to a list of events in a one-sided way. For example, the Times repeats the lie that Iran "hid" its enrichment facilities until 2002 -- but in fact Iran had simply not officially declared them to the IAEA since legally it wasn't obligated to do so yet, and in any case Iran's enrichment program was in fact never a secret. Or, the lie that Iran was "hiding" Fordo and only disclosed it when it had found out that the US knew about it? What a sad attempt to distort the true facts: Iran is not legally obligated to disclose a facility until 180-days prior to the introduction of nuclear material into the facility. If the US "beats them to the punch" and makes the site publicly known, it wasn't because Iran was "hiding" it - it was simply not within the 180-day time limit yet. And aside from that, the IAEA went to Fordo and investigated it, and the IAEA director said bluntly that it was nothing more than a hole in a mountain and nothing to be concerned about. That's another crucial bit of fact left out by the Times. Or the lie that Iran is not cooperating with IAEA efforts about the in-famous "Alleged Studies" -- leaving out the crucial fact that IRan has responded to them, to the best degree possible, especially considering that the IAEA has not been permitted by the US to actually show the evidence to Iran, that Iran is expected to rebut - something the former IAEA director complained about in his book where he also recounted that some of the documents cited as proof of Iranian nukes were in fact so obvious forgeries that in one case he simply returned the a document to the Israelis who had provided it to him. (I'm too tired to find all the links verifying what I've written here - google it.)

So what's really going on here? Why is the NY Times putting this spin on the story? Because for the longest time they've been looking for a way to kill the US National INtelligence Estimate, which has been saying for a while now that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and has shown no interest in one either. Boy when that NIE came out, it went off like a bomb. Bush ran off to Israel and disassociated himself from his own intelligence agencies. There was talk about intelligence agencies having carried out a "coup" and gone rogue. The Israelis were steaming. They've been pressing ever since to either get that NIE rewritten, or to somehow find a way around it, even if it means denigrating US intelligence analysts.  Well, here you go! Here's an Iranian official saying "We lied". How much hay can you make out of that?!

 

Comments

[TillmanNicole21]

If you are in the corner and have no money to get out from that, you will need to receive the loans. Just because that will help you for sure. I take small business loan every year and feel myself fine just because of that.

[CTuttle]

Cyrus, what's your thoughts on the delisting of the MeK...?

[Ali]

write about this please!!!

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/21/clinton-to-de-list-iranian-exile-group-from-terror-list/?hpt=hp_t3

cant believe this

[Al]

This is what Dr. Fereydoun Abbasi Davani said.
Abbasi Davani refers to a British spy:
we have provided false information to mislead foreign spies.
Vienna: Al-Hayat
Shawki Al-Rayes

Thursday, September 20, 2012
Predicted head of Iran's Atomic Energy Vice President Fereydoun Abbasi Diwani that «referred Iran's nuclear file back to the Security Council in November (November) next, if it continues to Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Yukiya Amano to adopt the current approach to deal with this file» . He repeated Abbasi Diwani, who heads the Iranian delegation great taking part in the fifty-sixth session of the Agency in Vienna, claim by Advisor of the Islamic Republic Ali Khamenei of Iran renounces nuclear weapons, saying it «does not need it to defend its interests and gains revolutionary». These remarks came in an interview with Al-Hayat here read:
> I said yesterday, in your speech to the conference that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) infiltrated intelligence agents dictate international agenda. Iran has given evidence on this? Are you made a formal complaint in this regard?
- IAEA says it got the information from the intelligence services belonging to the member states, and we monitor and follow up seven years ago activity moves the British foreign intelligence service (MI6), which gather information for people exposed to the assassination at the hands of Zionist intelligence agents. Some of the information provided by the agency related to these events, and people who have suffered at those who questioned the agency. For our part, we sometimes false information in order to protect our nuclear sites and our earnings. Inevitably mislead other intelligence. Sometimes show vulnerable do not suffer from it, in fact, sometimes show we do not have power, and interesting that it appears clear later in the negotiations and talks with the IAEA.And what is objectionable that the agency is dealing with us as a condemned in advance to prove her innocence. Accusing us of other parties and the agency is seeking to prove these charges, any similar to what happened with Saddam Hussein's regime. Want a legal framework to isolate Iran and tougher sanctions.
> Resolution adopted by the IAEA Board of Governors last week received the support of China and Russia, do not you see the message about changing the position of both Beijing and Moscow about your file?
- The Russians and the Chinese, endorsing the decision of the Board of Governors last week, did not change in their position and did not endorse what aims the Americans and the Europeans. The resolution called on Iran to cooperate with the IAEA, and we were, we will cooperate until a decision is. But what Americans want is to refer the issue back to the UN Security Council. I expect, if Amano continued in the same deal the current approach with this file, to be referred again to the Security Council in November (November) next. They put a plan of action for going Agency: Board of Governors climb in its decisions and then announce his inability to verification by force because it does not have legal authority, فيحيل subject to the Security Council.
Americans put their plans for the future and what they are doing now is to give motivated legal status, and therefore need international organizations. And if they are unable to obtain legal cover, they will act on their own. Not a U.S. military strike to Iran because it is unable to do so.
I would like to draw your attention to what the European delegate who persistently tried to give the impression that China and Russia stand to the west side, but I assure you that this is not true because Beijing and Moscow acted inspired by the interests.
> Reiterated what the Leader Khamenei said that Iran renounce the principle of producing nuclear weapons and they do not need him to defend itself, if that's the case, what is to prevent that تخضعوا منشأتكم full inspection and breathed all this tension?
- Why full inspection? Is not our nuclear facilities are subject to inspection several years ago? All nuclear sites are subject to inspection by the Agency in accordance with the legal requirements, it is enough to IAEA inspectors say they want to inspect a particular site, and they have to be at the site within two hours. What we hope to hide in two hours? All declared nuclear sites are subject to inspection. But there is no need to allow IAEA inspectors access to nuclear sites claim it. Take, for example Parchin site, it's a military ninety years ago and are manufactured weapons and ammunition, and some were still being developed modern defense systems. We have taken measures to prevent capture satellites for this site, and therefore they need to spies on the ground to monitor our activities, including traditional spies do not have the experience and skill required for such tasks, they are trying to tuck their clients through the inspection teams.