State of Denial

ByKenneth R.Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com
|October 5, 2006


House intelligencecommittee chairman Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R, Mi) has sent a scathingletter to IAEA Secretary General Mohammad ElBaradei, protesting anIAEA effort to discredit a report issued by Hoekstra’s staff onU.S. intelligence gaps on Iran.

Wait a minute. Whywould the International Atomic Energy Agency even bother to getinvolved when a U.S. congressional committee decides to take a lookat a domestic U.S. issue, to wit, the ability of our $44 billion/yearintelligence community to assess Iran’s intentions andcapabilities in its nuclear development programs?
¬Ý
Rep. Hoekstra calledthe IAEA move “particularly calculated to fit an agenda,possibly including interfering with the domestic political affairs ofthe United States.”
¬Ý
He’s right onthat score 1000%. But it gets worse.
¬Ý
Here are the basicfacts of this story.
¬Ý
On Aug. 23, the HousePermanent Select Committee on Intelligence subcommittee onIntelligence Policy released a staff report entitled “RecognizingIran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the UnitedStates.” (A PDF file of the complete report can bedownloadedhere).
¬Ý
Research for the reportwas conducted primarily but not exclusively by Republican staffmember Frederick Fleitz, a former CIA analyst detailed to the officeof John Bolton when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Controluntil his (still Senate-unconfirmed) appointment as US Ambassador tothe United Nations last year.
¬Ý
The HPSCI reportconcluded that “American intelligence agencies do not knownearly enough about Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” butthat “based on what is known about Iranian behavior and Iraniandeception efforts, the U.S. Intelligence Community assesses that Iranis intent on developing a nuclear weapons capability.”
¬Ý
Most informed readerswill look at that and say, so what else is new? When Iranian leaderssuch as former president Hashemi-Rafsanjani speak openly of a nuclearweapons exchange between Iran and Israel, as he has done repeatedly,who can seriously doubt the nuclear intentions of the IslamicRepublic of Iran?
¬Ý
Answer: the CIA, theState Department, and the IAEA.
¬Ý
It‘s called:State of Denial.
¬Ý
Within days ofreleasing the report, the CIA Rogue Weasels, led by former CIAanalyst Paul R. Pillar, weretelling Newsweek thatthis was Iraq all over again.
¬Ý
“When you havepressures coming from one place on the political spectrum--which seemto be pressures to come up with evidence to support a conclusion thatis already there--I take that as a worrisome sign of the same sort ofthing. The bright side here is that the unhappiness of Iraq is stillfresh enough in all of our minds ... we will all be on our guard,”said Pillar.
¬Ý
Translated into Dem-speak: the HPSCI report was a product of theNeo-con “cabal,” intended to support yet another “rushto war.”
¬Ý
In fact, just theopposite is the case.
¬Ý
The HPSCI reportdetails what we know about Iran’s declared nuclear programs, asestablished by Iran’s declarations to the IAEA. It urges theintelligence community to spend greater resources to ensure it getsit right this time.
¬Ý
It also points totroubling indicators of a parallel, clandestine nuclear weaponsprogram in Iran, including:
¬Ý
* Two covert uraniumenrichment programs, discovered belatedly by the IAEA.
¬Ý
* Iran’sextensive relationship to nuclear black market impresario Dr. A.Q.Khan, who provided uranium enrichment technology, equipment, andblueprints for the bomb to Iran.
¬Ý
* Documentationdiscovered in Iran by the IAEA of A.Q. Khan documents for “castingand machining enriched uranium hemispheres, which are directlyrelated to the production of nuclear weapons components.”
¬Ý
The report notes that the IAEA discovered in September 2003 that Iranhad “covertly produced” a short-lived radioisotope,polonium 210, which has only two known uses: satellite batteries, andnuclear weapons initiators.
¬Ý
This is just thebeginning of the case any Iran expert who watches these thingsclosely will make on whyIran’s nuclear program constitutes a breach of Iran’s NPTobligations and a clearthreat to the region, the world, and to the non-proliferationregime.
¬Ý
The IAEA doesn’tlike to accuse states such as Iran of violating their NPTobligations. And yet, the IAEA Board of Governors has done just that,as noted by Rep. Hoekstra’s report:
¬Ý
“Since 2002, theIAEA has issued a series of reports detailing how Iran has covertlyengaged in dozens of nuclear-related activities that violate itstreaty obligations to openly cooperate with the IAEA. Theseactivities included false statements to IAEA inspectors, carrying outcertain nuclear activities and experiments without notifying theIAEA, and numerous steps to deceive and mislead the IAEA.”
¬Ý
That brings us to thecore of the issue.
¬Ý
On Sept 12, an IAEAunderling, Vilmos Cserveny, penned a scurrilous letter to Hoekstra,taking “strong exception” to the HPSCI report on U.S.intelligence deficits on Iran.
¬Ý
Mr Cserveny claimed thereport made an “outrageous and dishonest suggestion:”regarding that the removal of IAEA chief inspector on Iran,Christophe Charlier.
¬Ý
Here’s what theHPSCI report said:
¬Ý
“While not aninstance of Iranian perfidy, the spring 2006 decision by IAEADirector General ElBaradei to remove Mr. Christopher Charlier, thechief IAEA Iran inspector, for allegedly raising concerns aboutIranian deception regarding its nuclear program and concluding thatthe purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to construct weapons, shouldgive U.S. policymakers great pause.”
¬Ý
Those are measuredwords that recall an earlier admonition to the IAEA by a U.S. Senatecommittee for firing an IAEA inspector of Iraqi nuclear sites in1981, who had warned of weapons-related activity shortly beforeIsrael destroyed Saddam Hussein’s French-built nuclear bombplant at Thuwaitha in June 1981.
¬Ý
Note: The IAEA letterblasting the HPSCI report does not dispute the fact that the Agencyfired Mr. Charlier as chief inspector in Iran. Instead, it tries tomislead the U.S. media (the IAEA’s real audience) by callingthe HPSCI account “outrageous” and a “dishonestsuggestion” that the “removal [of Mr. Charlier]might have been¬Ý for ‘not having adhered to anunstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the wholetruth about the Iranian nuclear program.’”
¬Ý
Here is the preciselanguage of the HPSCI report:
¬Ý
“If Mr. Charlierwas removed for not adhering to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEAofficials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclearprogram, the United States and the international community have aserious problem on their hands.”
¬Ý
In his reply to thesescurrilous accusations by the IAEA, which constitute an intrusioninto U.S. domestic political affairs, Rep. Hoekstra noted that thatthe United States had “complained formally” about thedecision to reassign Mr. Charlier as chief Iran weaponsinspector.
¬Ý
“I believe it isfair to characterize that this IAEA action was undertaken quietly,and that there was an effort not to inform IAEA members,” Rep.Hoekstra wrote. “Further, I understand that you have omittedmentioning the Charlier reassignment in your reports to the IAEABoard of Governors. The Cserveny letter is apparently the first timethe IAEA has publicly admitted that it reassigned Charlier at therequest of Iran.”
¬Ý
Such blatantmisrepresentation of facts comes from the IAEA, an agency the UnitedStates government depends for on-site inspections of Iran’sdeclared nuclear facilities.
¬Ý
If the IAEA can’tget it right, don’t expect the U.S. intelligence community todo better.
¬Ý
Is it any wonder thatIAEA director Mohammad ElBardeli would send an underling to do thebig boy’s bidding in such a scurrilous fight?

Originalarticle: