IAEA nuclear report
strengthens case
against Iran
You know, it's a funny thing, but it's a lot easier to find blathering commentary about the IAEA Iran report than it is to find the actual report. It's like the Penn State hysteria that occupies endless air time as opposed to the succinct Grand Jury report that in 25 or fewer pages discredits anybody who doesn't take the raping of children seriously, at Penn State or anywhere.
Similarly, in Canada we have the acidic report of the Oliphant Inquiry that is damn near impossible to find although there is endless emollient Conservative propaganda talking about it without saying anything.
And so, now, we have Sy Hersh, a fabulously irritated incorruptible reporter, discussing the IAEA report on Iran that sent the BBC into paroxysms of flatulent anxiety.
November 18, 2011
IRAN AND THE I.A.E.A.
Posted by Seymour M. Hersh
"Joseph Cirincione, the president of the Ploughshare Fund, a disarmament group, who serves on Hillary Clinton’s International Security Advisory Board, said, “I was briefed on most of this stuff several years ago at the I.A.E.A. headquarters in Vienna. There’s little new in the report. Most of this information is well known to experts who follow the issue.” Cirincione noted that “post-2003, the report only cites computer modelling and a few other experiments.” (A senior I.A.E.A. official similarly told me, “I was underwhelmed by the information.”)"
And, as a matter of fact, I did read the IAEA Iran report for myself, and I found it unconvincing even though I'm a civilian, the report being short on actual evidence and long on unpersuasive argument that anything in Iran has actually changed since 2003. Except perhaps that the IAEA itself has been corrupted after the departure of ElBaradei, and that the new guy from Japan has done nothing constructive about Fukushima, a much greater threat to world safety than is Iran.
Has anybody considered actually talking to the Iranians?
