Wednesday, 23 November 2011

Ex-Inspector Rejects IAEA Iran Bomb Claim

The report said it had "confirmed" that a "large cylindrical object" housed at the same complex had been "designed to contain the detonation of up to 70 kilograms of high explosives". That amount of explosives, it said, would be "appropriate" for testing a detonation system to trigger a nuclear weapon.

But former IAEA inspector Robert Kelley has denounced the agency's claims about such a containment chamber as "highly misleading".

Kelley, a nuclear engineer who was the IAEA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq and is now a senior research fellow at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, pointed out in an interview with the Real News Network that a cylindrical chamber designed to contain 70 kg of explosives, as claimed by the IAEA, could not possibly have been used for hydrodynamic testing of a nuclear weapon design, contrary to the IAEA claim.

"There are far more explosives in that bomb than could be contained by this container," Kelley said, referring to the simulated explosion of a nuclear weapon in a hydrodynamic experiment.

Kelley also observed that hydrodynamic testing would not have been done in a container inside a building in any case. "You have to be crazy to do hydrodynamic explosives in a container," he said. "There's no reason to do it. They're done outdoors on firing tables."

Kelley rejected the IAEA claim that the alleged cylindrical chamber was new evidence of an Iranian weapons program. "We've been led by the nose to believe that this container is important, when in fact it's not important at all," Kelley said.

The IAEA report and unnamed "diplomats" implied that a "former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist", identified in the media as Danilenko, had helped build the alleged containment vessel at Parchin.

But their claims conflict with one another as well as with readily documented facts about Danilenko's work in Iran.

The IAEA report does not deny that Danilenko - a Ukrainian who worked in a Soviet-era research institute that was identified mainly with nuclear weapons - was actually a specialist on nanodiamonds. The report nevertheless implies a link between Danilenko and the purported explosives chamber at Parchin by citing a publication by Danilenko as a source for the dimensions of the alleged explosives chamber.

A bunch of nasty folks want a War with Iran, in order the destroy the Iranian infrastructure and their influence in the Middle East, same as what we saw with Iraq.

Thankfully this time around there are more dissenting voices brought about by online knowledge, which translates to more people in the real world, ready to speak out and highlight the lies and propaganda. Open dialog (ie strong diplomatic relations) and trade would utterly kill off any claims that Iran should be attacked:

You do not attack friendly nations where tourists like to go and where the general population is hospitable to their guests.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, November 23rd, 2011.]


steven andresen said...


As time goes on, and things are becoming worse..., I have little reason to believe that the people of the U.S. will be able to keep the 1%, otherwise known as the rich elites, from totally fucking the place up.

So, it hasn't seemed to make any difference to the elites that threatening Iran or preparing to destroy Iran are themselves illegal acts, and acts likely to lead to hopeless killing.

I think the OWS protests and the response by the police to suppress them, instead of the politicians to change things in accord with the OWS pleadings, shows that if the government decided to attack Iran without provocation, there would be no force in the U.S. that could stop it.

The political sphere is completely insulated from any arguments or efforts made from outside it. The entire population could rise up in protest, there could be general strikes, there could be rioting, and austerity would come about, oppressive pepper-spraying and worse, and the soldiers would still be sent off to steal from and kill the Iranians.

The effort to argue that the IAEA report is false assumes that the process of sending the U.S. military to some country, for whatever reason, is one that accords by the rule of law. There are procedures, it is assumed, by which an invasion and occupation would be justified. However, I do not believe that our elites care much about laws or justifications anymore.

So, read Greenwald's latest book, "With justice for some," where he shows that the country is no longer ruled by laws. He doesn't spend any time drawing out the implications, but, how this effects our wars would be one area that would be changed.

That is, yes, people might talk up how this or that war was necessary because so and so "broke international laws", like the Iranians...but, as our leaders really don't give a shit anymore about laws, that kind of argument would only cover up a world of law breaking on the part of the United States.

As things go, there were many arguments made against invading Iraq, all to no effect. There will be many arguments made about why we should not attack or threaten Iran, and these will fail too.

They just don't care about arguments and the little people.

SpookyPunkos said...

And nevertheless I will keep pointing these things out. :)

The elites can attempt to do whatever they think they can get away with but I am counting that there will be consequences for them in the future.

I think some open criticism of their actions curtails their plans somewhat or else we would just see a few tactical nukes let loose every now and again- willy nilly. And, after all, the people calling the shots are just men who are not invulnerable to rebellion (of sorts) or non-cooperation.

Obviously it would help if the police, military, and other parts of the bureaucracy became fed up with all these shenanigans and launched/assisted efforts to stop what is happening.

I believe that eariler attempts to attack Iran during the Bush Administration were scuttled via the release of a National Intelligence Estimate in 2006 that stated the Iranians had discontinued their nuclear weapons program 5 years previously. Not everyone on the inside wants to follow the War program.

I think it is possible we will see legal attempts made to end the corrupt system in the long run. Perhaps military officers can secretly use their power to organise for the arrest and trial of those individuals who have violated US Law in terms of launching unnecessary wars and obstructing justice. They could facilitate the prosecution or torture enablers like Cheney or corporate criminal defenders like Holder/Obama who have failed to start criminal proceedings against obvious Wall Street financial fraud. Such attempts to get justice could also be made by States AG and/or groups of Lawyers. A highly protected Grand Jury investigation could be initiated as part of this process.

Hopefully as things get worse desperate actions will be taken to stop the criminals (or at least some of the criminals).

Spook !

steven andresen said...


I don't believe the military will be the source of our democratic re-awakening. In fact, because the corporations that promote war material expenditures staff the military hierarchy, I would think just the opposite. I would not be surprised that the U.S. government was taken over by military types who believed liberals weren't man enough to end the world.