BBC, Iran and the Bomb

[Sinclair]

BBC, Iran and the Bomb
From here

Here, an astute reader challenges the BBC on statements made within BBC News reports:

+++++++++++++

Dear Steve Herrmann, Editor, News Online

I hope you are well.

The BBC News website’s article “Iran urged to stop nuclear work” reads:
“Iran is on course to produce enough fissile nuclear material to make a nuclear bomb within 3 years, according to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.”
That statement seems quite strange, since in the same BBC News website there is another article that reads:
“So given these limitations, the IISS [International Institute of Strategic Studies] believes it would take Iran at least a decade to produce enough HEU for a single nuclear weapon.” (Iran 'years from nuclear bomb', By Sarah Buckley and Paul Rincon, BBC News website)
I went to the International Institute of Strategic Studies and I found an article published today by the Daily Telegraph. This article reads:
“Mark Fitzpatrick, a counter-proliferation specialist at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that even if Iran can operate a basic unit of 164 machines efficiently and for a sustained period of time, it would take 11 years for it to make enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb.” (Has Iran reached nuclear point of no return? By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor, April 12, 2004)
Also, just as another reference, The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2005:
“A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.” (Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb. U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements, By Dafna Linzer, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, August 2, 2005)

QUESTION: Where do those “3 years” come from?

Thank you for your time and I look forward for your comments.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Ms. Zamparini,
Thank you for noting this and alerting me. I have just spoken to a reporter at reporter at BBC who undertook to have the discrepancy corrected.
A detailed IISS report last September concluded that if Iran threw caution to the wind and ignored international reactions, it could produce enough HEU for one weapon by the end of the decade at the earliest. The clock on that five-year timeline began ticking in January when Iran resumed the enrichment, although it actually resumed enrichment-related work in August. In the past couple weeks, more than one reputable organization has concluded that three years is the shortest timeline. Given the speed at which Iran is moving, it is hard to dispute the three year figure. But these timeline estimates are all a bit of a crapshoot. I have been saying that estimates of 3, 5 and even 10 years are all within the margin of error, because it is unknowable, especially if IAEA inspectors cannot have greater access than they have right now.
The 11-year figure I gave the Guardian was if the Iranians stopped at 164 centrifuges. They plan to go far beyond that.

Regards,
Mark Fitzpatrick


***

Read Mr. Fitzpatrick's bio here

***

MY REPLY TO MR. FITZPATRICK

Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick,

Thank you for your reply.

Original BBC’s article: “Iran is on course to produce enough fissile nuclear material to make a nuclear bomb within 3 years, according to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.”

After my email and after you contacted the BBC, the article now reads: “Iran could be in a position to produce enough fissile nuclear material to make a nuclear bomb within 3-5 years, according to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.”

So, “is on course” became “could be” and “3 years” became “within 3-5 years”.

Well, considering that this may be the reason for a possible nuclear bombing of that country by the US government, this correction has its importance indeed.

Please, forgive my ignorance. In your email you also write: “I have been saying that estimates of 3, 5 and even 10 years are all within the margin of error, because it is unknowable...”

But in the BBC’s article there is no mention of this and it doesn’t seem a detail to me. Don’t you think that the BBC (and the media in general) should be more careful about the words they use and the way they present all this issue. Iraq’s precedent on the WMD should teach us something after all.

Please, I would be very interested in your opinion and also don’t you think that the readers of that BBC article could still be mislead since in that article there is no mention of “that estimates of 3, 5 and even 10 years are all within the margin of error” ?

Thank you very much for your time and kindness.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Ms. Zamparini,

I appreciate your deep interest in this matter. There is much more that can be said about it, but the corrected article on the BBC website is accurate, in terms of what I said to the reporter who interviewed me.

Regards,
Mark


Mark Fitzpatrick
Senior Fellow for Non-Proliferation
International Institute for Strategic Studies
Arundel House, 13-15 Arundel Street
Temple Place, London WC2R 3DX

Switchboard: +44(020) 7379 7676
Fax: + 44(0)20 7836 31 08
E-mail: Fitzpatrick@iiss.org
web site: www.iiss.org

***

Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick,

Thank you for your reply.

Since you get responsibility for what that BBC’s article states - “Iran could be in a position to produce enough fissile nuclear material to make a nuclear bomb within 3-5 years, according to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.” - I will ask you those questions and those remarks.

In the BBC’s article there is no mention of what you wrote me in your previous email: “I have been saying that estimates of 3, 5 and even 10 years are all within the margin of error, because it is unknowable...”. Did you tell the BBC’s reporter about this? If yes, how can you write that “the corrected article on the BBC website is accurate, in terms of what I said to the reporter who interviewed me.” ?

If you didn’t tell this paramount element to the BBC’s reporter, could you tell me why?

Having in mind what happened regarding Iraq and WMD, should we wait other hundreds of thousands of civilians deaths to know “that estimates of 3, 5 and even 10 years are all within the margin of error, because it is unknowable...” ?

Don’t you feel the responsibility of your knowledge and for the consequences of what you say to the media?

Yesterday a Bloomberg’s reporter wrote:
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said. (...) Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.” (“Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says (Update2)”)

You may want to inform Mr. Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, “that three years is the shortest timeline... [and] that estimates of 3, 5 and even 10 years are all within the margin of error, because it is unknowable...”.

Since your bio reads “Mr Fitzpatrick comes to IISS from a distinguished 26-year career in the US Department of State, where for the last ten years he focused on non-proliferation issues.” I am sure you will find Mr. Rademaker’s number.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini
posted by The Cat's Dream at 7:20 PM

1 Comments:
Anonymous said...
I was curious also about Mr. Fitzpatrick's comments alluding to Iran not being supportive in providing access to the IAEA. The IAEA's own comments state;

"This is evidenced, in particular, by Iran’s granting to the Agency unrestricted access to all locations the Agency requested to visit; by the provision of information and clarifications in relation to the origin of imported equipment and components; and by making individuals available for interviews. This is a welcome development"

Page 10 of
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-75.pdf

[Rory Winter]

Memo to PM: Action speaks louder than Words



Artful Dodger, Tony Blair, would like us to believe that he does not support the neocon madmen's intention to attack, let alone nuke, Iran. An article in The Scotsman claims government sources saying that Blair has informed Bush that Britain "cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the backing of the international community."

"We will support the diplomatic moves, at best," a Foreign Office source told Scotland on Sunday. "But we cannot commit our own resources to a military strike." The article does confirm, however, that "Blair is expected to support the call for a 'Chapter 7' resolution, which could effectively isolate Iran from the international community.

So, once the Deceiver's words are decoded, what does it all mean? For starters, if anyone should mistake the Bliar's sleight-of-hand tactics as a commitment to keep Britain out of a war with Iran then they'll be disappointed.

He knows he cannot brazenly declare open support for his ideological bosom-buddies in Washington's War Party. With local elections coming up in May, any indication to the domestic electorate that he remains a fanatic supporter of the Straussian vision of military globalisation would sound the death knell for him and his party. Now is certainly not a good time to talk tough and risk scaring off the voters.

Suddenly we see a sensible Blair supported by a veritable man of reason and diplomacy in his Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, who dismisses a military attack on Iran as "completely nuts." Significantly, there has been no leaked letter addressed by Blair & Co to George and Dick pointing this out.

And, of course, it would be diplomatically impolite to make any comment about the internal disarray currently affecting a White House where the generals are revolting! None of this looks good for George and Dick and, through his past association with fascists on both sides of the Atlantic for our own Great Deceiver. The message that his days, too, are numbered must be finally getting to him. And that spectre of Nuremburg which keeps haunting his fitful slumber keeps returning in a form that is ever more real.

No, the public must be shown a reformed Blair, one who chooses diplomacy over Shock and Awe. It's bad enough to have the killing fields of Irak splash their indelible bloody mark on one's political tombstone. Tony certainly doesn't want to go down in history as the horrid little quisling who openly condoned the killing of millions of innocent Iranians in a savage nuclear attack by the world's number one bullyboy.

But, alas, poor Tony actions speak louder than spin and your track-record in playing along with Washington's deceit over Iran has already stamped your forehead with another indelible curse: that of complicity and of using Britain's diplomats in the service of another power whose purpose, all along, has been one of naked, belligerent imperialism. It's the Oil, Stupid, as if the rest of us didn't know.

Decoding the Deceiver's words, what we read is something like this: "No, I don't need to commit UK troops to an air-strike on Iran because that's as bad as it might get and the US is perfectly capable of such an attack with a little surreptitious help by the UK allowing it to use its air-bases, AWAC facilities and SAS services. Nobody's going to spot that, least of all those stupid MPs."

"I've already done enough damage by manipulating the IAEA into reporting Iran to the UNSC for faked violations. Now, Iran has been nicely demonized. So my last contract killing is to persuade everyone to call a Chapter 7 Resolution because, shh, that will not only bring about Iran's final isolation but will enable us to starve and kill off its population through sanctions and, when deemed necessary, legitimise a full-scale military attack. Iran will be ours."

If you were really serious, Mr Bliar, why didn't you dissociate Britain from Washington's warmongers when all this Iran nonsense first started? Why didn't you back that up by denying the US juggernaut use of British bases and facilities? And why did your Military play Iran wargames two years ago in preparation for the inevitable?

You might think we're all fools, Tony, for not seeing through your bluff. But we have and so has Iran. That is why, no matter what you say now, Iran's suicide-bombers, we are told, are preparing to target Britain. If, and God forbid that it should ever come to more innocent lives being taken in revenge, then the final responsibility must lie, not with Britain's Muslims or Islam, but with the venal traitor who, twice, dragged his country into an unnecessary hell.

http://chimesofreedom.blogspot.com/2006/04/memo-to-pm-action-speaks-lo uder-than.html