Pravda, anyone?

In an interview with the Haaretz newspaper published yesterday, Israeli Lieutenant-General Benny Gantz was asked his view of the Iranian nuclear weapons program.  Here are some key excerpts:

"If Iran goes nuclear it will have negative dimensions for the world, for the region, for the freedom of action Iran will permit itself," Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz told Haaretz in an Independence Day interview. That freedom of action might be expressed "against us, via the force Iran will project toward its clients: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad in Gaza. And there's also the potential for an existential threat. If they have a bomb, we are the only country in the world that someone calls for its destruction and also builds devices with which to bomb us. [...]

Asked whether 2012 is also decisive for Iran, Gantz shies from the term. "Clearly, the more the Iranians progress the worse the situation is. This is a critical year, but not necessarily 'go, no-go.' The problem doesn't necessarily stop on December 31, 2012. We're in a period when something must happen: Either Iran takes its nuclear program to a civilian footing only or the world, perhaps we too, will have to do something. We're closer to the end of the discussions than the middle."[...]

Iran, Gantz says, "is going step by step to the place where it will be able to decide whether to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It hasn't yet decided whether to go the extra mile.  As long as its facilities are not bomb-proof, the program is too vulnerable, in Iran's view. If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken. It will happen if Khamenei judges that he is invulnerable to a response. I believe he would be making an enormous mistake, and I don't think he will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people. But I agree that such a capability, in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who at particular moments could make different calculations, is dangerous."

And here are Reuters correspondent Maayan Lubell's headline and lede in her report on the Haaretz/Gantz interview:

Israel army chief says Iran unlikely to make bomb

(Reuters) - Israel's military chief said he does not believe Iran will decide to produce an atomic bomb, describing its leadership as "very rational" in an interview published on Wednesday.

Of course, this is not what Gantz is saying at all.  He is saying that Iran is on the deliberate path toward nuclear weapons but that the regime will not take the final decision to build a bomb until the Supreme Leader "judges that Iran is invulnerable to a response", i.e., foreign attack.  Gantz believes this decision will be taken once Iran's nuclear facilities become bomb-proof.  It is in this sense, that Gantz judges Iran's leadership to be rational.

Lubell and Reuters willfully edit and twist Gantz' words to make it appear that he has said he believes Iran will not produce an atomic bomb, because the leadership is rational.

The depths to which Reuters correspondents will stoop to obfuscate reality are truly astounding.

Iranian cleric insists on uranium enrichment, end to sanctions; Reuters trumpets breakthrough

Only a media company shilling for Iran could suggest the following reflects the regime is "softening its stance" in negotiations over its nuclear weapons program:

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, secretary of the powerful Guardian Council, said the talks showed "success and progress" but added Tehran would break off the negotiations if Western countries carried on imposing sanctions while negotiating. [...]

Addressing Friday prayers, Jannati said the talks showed "success and progress", adding: "They (western countries) are ready to accept that enrichment is Iran's right," state media reported. He added Iranians needed assurances from the West that it would no longer be their enemy. "The West should lift sanctions against Iran but if they continue to insist on sanctions and then say they are negotiating with Iran, it is clear that this talks will be halted," he warned.

So, let's see if we have this right:

Speaking on behalf of the Iranian regime, a cleric threatens that Iran will terminate negotiations if sanctions are not removed while talks are ongoing, and that the world must accede to Iran's illicit uranium enrichment activities.

And this is represented by Reuters correspondent Marcus George as "a further sign of a changing attitude within the Iranian leadership". 

One can only wonder what an Iranian cleric would have to say for George to consider it a further sign of intransigence.

773

That's the number of Reuters stories published over just the last couple of years employing the propaganda mantra "the West suspects Iran" (of developing nuclear weapons), in a willful effort by the news agency to conceal and play down damning independent evidence of Iran's comprehensive program to acquire the bomb:

Both sides say they are ready at the meeting to work towards resolving the deepening dispute over the nuclear program which the West suspects is geared towards achieving a nuclear arms capability, but which Iran says has purely peaceful purposes.

In next to none of the 773 stories does Reuters make mention of that independent evidence, as produced for example, by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency:

The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:
• Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
• Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex, Section C.3);
• The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
• Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).

Reuters: systematically dumbing down the planet.

Tabassum Zakaria at a loss to understand Iran's Supreme Leader

Reuters correspondent Tabassum Zakaria is utterly mystified.  Just what is driving Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?

(Reuters) - When U.S. officials join talks this weekend about Iran's nuclear program, they will be armed with profiles developed by intelligence agencies offering insight into what makes foreign leaders tick.  [...]
Former U.S. officials and Iran experts say Khamenei has a deep-rooted suspicion of the West and a streak of insecurity - he rose to power due to his loyalty to the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini rather than lofty religious credentials.
A sense of inferiority has dogged him over the years and it would be especially important for Khamenei to be seen as not folding under Western pressure to reach an agreement, they said.

In an inadvertently hilarious story, Zakaria spends nearly 1,200 words scratching her head while she cites various intelligence analysts, psychiatrists, and heads of think tanks advising Vice-President Joe Biden, in an effort to divine the mysterious motivations of the Ayatollah:

But even if the United States had great access to Iran, the intentions of one man are not easy to discern.
"It's important to keep in mind that these analysts are trying to assess complex human beings, including all the outside factors that might influence them," the U.S. official said.
One question about Khamenei's intentions is his stated view that nuclear weapons are a sin.
Some experts shrug it off, saying the Iranian leader could issue a new religious edict if it suits a changing circumstance.
But Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA analyst, sees the proclamation as a potentially hopeful sign for nuclear talks.
"It gives him an out," said Pillar, a Georgetown University professor. "He is on record as having made a statement that would not make it shameful or a sign of weakness to come to an understanding with the West ... that clearly rules out a nuclear weapon."
While Khamenei says Iran does not seek nuclear weapons, he has insisted that others respect Iran's civilian nuclear rights.
Standing up for injustice and for Iran's rights is central to how he looks at the nuclear issue and should be considered in how the West frames its approach so that it allows him to save face, a former U.S. government Middle East expert said.  [...] 
"On the one hand we see him as a figure who doesn't really trust the international system, doesn't trust the United States, but he is also not extremely reckless," said Laipson, a former vice chair of the National Intelligence Council.

1,200 words of mental masturbation and nary a mention of Khamenei's many explicit threats to annihilate Israel and exterminate the Jewish people.

Memo to Tabassum and her psychological "experts": sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Reuters new shill for Iran

Despite being tossed out of the country for a story headline that the Iranian mullahs found not to their liking, Reuters continues to obfuscate and censor news of Iran's drive for nuclear weapons as documented by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and respected intelligence think tanks.

The Reuters correspondent most responsible for shilling on behalf of the Iranian regime at the present time, is Marcus George.

In a story published this morning for example, about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasting that his country can withstand a total embargo on its oil sales for 2-3 years, George repeats the long-standing Reuters fallacy that the battle over Iran's nuclear program is merely a he said/she said between that country and the amorphous "West":

The United States and its allies hope the sanctions on Iran's energy and financial sectors will force it to abandon uranium enrichment which they suspect is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its goals are entirely peaceful.

Note George's duplicitous handling of the dispute as merely one of (unproven) claim and denial: the United States and its allies "suspect"; Iran clarifies that this is not the case.

George makes no mention whatsoever of any of the long series of UN IAEA reports documenting Iranian efforts on all fronts -- uranium enrichment, weaponization, delivery --  to build a nuclear weapon.  Thus, his audience is systematically denied the facts needed to understand that Iran is in violation of its NPT obligations and that this is the driver behind punitive United Nations Security Council resolutions (which also go unmentioned).

Rather, readers are given the false impression that the United States, the EU and Israel are acting capriciously and in concert to punish Iran with sanctions for mere suspicion the regime is developing nuclear weapons.

Reuters: systematically dumbing down the planet.

Rest easy: Reuters promises "Iran nuclear threat not imminent" (updated)

In previous stories, Reuters correspondents Tabassum Zakaria and Mark Hosenball (the latter having joined Reuters recently from the self-acknowledged left-wing and bankrupt Newsweek magazine), have gone to extraordinary lengths to assure the public that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons and that the real danger to peace and global security is an unpredictable and belligerent (shitty little?) country whose leaders go around making "provocative public comments" about Iran's nuclear program.

Zakaria and Hosenball are back today with yet another completely unsubstantiated story, drawn they say, "from extensive [anonymous] interviews with current and former U.S. and European officials with access to intelligence on Iran", in an effort to once again downplay the Iranian threat:

(Reuters) - The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran's nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead. 
Reuters has learned that in late 2006 or early 2007, U.S. intelligence intercepted telephone and email communications in which Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a leading figure in Iran's nuclear program, and other scientists complained that the weaponization program had been stopped.
That led to a bombshell conclusion in a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate: American spy agencies had "high confidence" that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003.
Current and former U.S. officials say they are confident that Iran has no secret uranium-enrichment site outside the purview of U.N. nuclear inspections.
They also have confidence that any Iranian move toward building a functional nuclear weapon would be detected long before a bomb was made.
These intelligence findings are what underpin President Barack Obama's argument that there is still time to see whether economic sanctions will compel Iran's leaders to halt any program.

Unfortunately for Zakaria and Hosenball, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), cited by the pair of Reuters correspondents in a previous story when they felt the organization was officially dubious of Iran's progress toward a nuclear bomb, has just published a new paper arguing that National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program are today far more comprehensive in their methodology and scope than they were in 2007, when Iran was assessed to have suspended its drive for the bomb:

ISIS has learned in researching and discussing the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran that important differences exist from the 2007 NIE on Iran’s capability to make a nuclear weapon.  The 2007 declassified NIE specifically noted that it did not take into account Iran’s “declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment” when assessing the status of its nuclear weapons program.  The new NIE does not distinguish between declared and undeclared enrichment activities when considering Iran’s nuclear weapons capability.  In doing so, the new NIE more accurately values the impact that Iran’s advancements in its gas centrifuge uranium enrichment program, declared or otherwise, have on its capability to decide to make highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon.  This acknowledges that Iran’s capability to make highly enriched uranium, as represented by the declared elements of its uranium enrichment program, influences any political decision to make nuclear weapons. The new NIE includes that Iran could be furthering its development of components for nuclear weapons while reportedly assessing that not enough activity has occurred on weaponization to justify a determination that Iran has made a decision to restart its nuclear weaponization program or build a bomb [...]
Emphasizing the old approach of whether Iran’s nuclear weaponization program has restarted appears more aimed at defending the poor methodologies popularized in the declassified 2007 NIE. This approach also ignores that Iran is judged by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (and stated in internal IAEA documents) to have likely accumulated enough knowledge prior to 2004 to be able to construct a crude nuclear explosive device, suitable for underground testing and simple delivery systems. This capability would mean that the time is relatively short between when a nuclear weaponization program would take possession of enough weapon-grade uranium for a device and when a crude device could be assembled—on order of six months or less.

In other words, while U.S. intelligence agencies may not formally declare that Iran has taken a decision to build a bomb, that doesn't mean the regime is not in the process of continuing to develop components for the bomb -- which could lead to the assembly and delivery of a bomb within six months.

Now, don't you feel better?

Reuters still covering for Iran's nukes program

In story after story about Iran and its nuclear weapons medical isotopes program, Reuters correspondents continue to sanitize, downplay, or simply conceal evidentiary assessments by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran is illegally engaged in all of the necessary R & D activities associated with building and delivering a nuclear warhead.

Here's Dan Williams trying to shift attention to Israel while framing the crisis with Iran as merely an unsupported claim by "western officials" and commensurate rebuttal from Iran:

But it [Israel] is keen to cast itself as a responsible nuclear player while world powers step up scrutiny of Iran's disputed nuclear energy programme, which Western officials suspect is covertly designed to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies this.

And Reuters Istanbul correspondent, Alexandra Hudson, portraying Israel as a belligerent loose cannon while characterizing Iran's weaponization efforts as a "nuclear energy programme":

Israel is threatening to take military action, with or without U.S. support, if Iran is deemed to be continuing to defy pressure to curb its nuclear projects. Iran insists its nuclear energy programme is purely non-military.

And Arshad Mohammed and Andrew Quinn suggesting that international sanctions against Iran are actuated by the Iranian regime's "failure to answer questions" directed by "Washington and its allies":  

The United States has tightened sanctions due to Iran's failure to answer questions about its nuclear program, which Washington and its allies suspect is a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says it is solely to generate power supply.

No mention in any of these stories of the United Nations IAEA, the mountain of independent and scientific analysis adjudging Iran, or the regime's many explicit threats to destroy another nation-state and exterminate its people.

Nothing to see here; move along.

Oh brother. Reuters asks Americans if they would support military action against Iran IF there were evidence of a nuclear weapons program

Reuters runs a poll:

(Reuters) - A majority of Americans would support military action against Iran if there were evidence that Tehran is building nuclear weapons, even if such action led to higher gasoline prices, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Tuesday.
The poll showed 56 percent of Americans would support U.S. military action against Iran if there were evidence of a nuclear weapon program. Thirty-nine percent of Americans opposed military strikes.

Because after all, according to Reuters there is currently no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.  Merely "suspicions".

We wonder how many more Americans would have polled in favor of military action if Reuters had asked the question without loading it.

Amusing editorial comment of the day

We like Reuters correspondent Fredrik Dahl.  Despite a couple of journalistic missteps in the past where he has offered Syria and Iran passes on their nuclear weapons programs while drawing attention to Israel's "undeclared nuclear arsenal", Dahl now appears to be genuinely trying to inform readers on Iran's stonewalling of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency.

Of course, the Iranian regime doesn't always cooperate on this front:

Iran media reports this week suggested a visit to Parchin might still be granted but the IAEA said on Thursday Tehran had not contacted it formally about any trip.
Iran's IAEA ambassador, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told reporters outside the board meeting that the suspicions aired about Parchin were "childish" and "ridiculous".  He did not elaborate.

Actually, we understand Dahl missed Soltanieh's follow-up where the ambassador stated:

"I'm rubber; you're glue. Everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you".

Crispian Balmer attempts to show Israelis oppose strike on Iran, wrenches neck

Last week, we commented on a story by Reuters correspondent Maayan Lubell where she massaged the results of a survey which had asked Israelis whether they supported a military attack on Iran to prevent that country from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Lubell obfuscated the finding that, when U.S. moral support is provided, a wide majority of Israelis (61 percent) favor an attack.  Indeed, only 34 percent said Israel should not strike Iran with or without American accord.

Today, Reuters Jerusalem (France) Bureau Chief, Crispian Balmer, attempts to duplicate Lubell's heavily biased interpretation of the same poll, conveniently omits report of the 42 percent of Israelis who favor an attack with U.S. moral support, and ends up tying himself (and his readers) into knots:

An opinion poll published last week said just 19 percent of Israelis thought their nation should attack Iran, even if they did not first get the support of Washington.

Huh?  According to the poll, 19 percent of Israelis support a military strike against Iran absent any support from the U.S. and 42 percent support a military strike against Iran with moral support from the U.S. for a total conditional support base of 61 percent.

Memo to Crispian: reporting the facts straightforwardly is an obligation as a Reuters Bureau Chief -- and doesn't result in neck cramps.

Reuters quotes as expert on Israeli security concerns, individual who believes "Israel ain't a very good idea"

It's always amusing when Reuters correspondents cherry-pick and quote "analysts" and other "experts" in an effort to advance their personal editorial agendas under the guise of independent and impartial reporting.

In today's illustration, Matt Spetalnick, whose traditional reporting agenda has been to pit Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against U.S. President Barack Obama and play up differences between the two, calls attention to the current debate between Israel and the U.S. on how best to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions:

Still, Obama - in an Atlantic magazine interview published on Friday - insisted that Iran "is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time in which we will know that they are making that attempt."
And Obama warned in Washington on Sunday against "loose talk" of war with Iran, saying such "bluster" was counterproductive because it has been driving up global oil prices and boosting demand for Iran's oil exports.
That may have been a message to Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders, whose have engaged in a strident exchange of recriminations with Iranian officials in recent months.
Daniel Levy, an analyst at the New America Foundation think tank, said Obama had "offered clarity and commitments on mainstream Israeli concerns without capitulating to the Netanyahu narrative, which is far more dismissive of diplomacy."
Speaking in Ottawa, the right-wing Israeli leader ignored Obama's appeal to let sanctions run their course and focused on the president's insistence on keeping the military option open and backing Israel's right to defend itself.

Spetalnick cites a "strident exchange of recriminations" between Netanyahu and Iranian officials in recent months.  Hmm, let's see... the Reuters correspondent must be referring to that even-handed exchange between Netanyahu and Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei where the former stated:

"As for Israel, like any sovereign country, we reserve the right to defend ourselves against a country that calls and works for our destruction."

in response to Khamenei's suggestion that:

"It is legally and morally justified to commit genocide and wipe Israel off the map."

Because after all, Spetalnick is constitutionally unable to distinguish between threats of genocide by one party, and assertions to the right of self-defense by the other.

But what truly exposes Spetalnick as a dishonest hawker of anti-Israel propaganda is, on the one hand, his stale approach of labeling Netanyahu as "right-wing" in order to dismiss the Prime Minister's focus on the need for a credible military threat to dissuade Iran from consummating its nuclear weapons program, and on the other, the correspondent's employ of "analyst" Daniel Levy to suggest that Obama had put to rest Israeli concerns without committing to that military threat.

Because beyond what little Spetalnick wants his audience to know, Levy is someone who believes that if Israel should have to resort to military force to defend its survival, then perhaps the country "ain't a very good idea".



Certainly a chap whose assurances on behalf of Obama Israelis can believe in.

Reuters fudges the figures

Reuters correspondents are notorious for cherry-picking and massaging survey data to support their own political positions and editorial agendas.

Note how Jerusalem-based, Maayan Lubell, who apparently advocates for Jews to be ethnically cleansed from their homes and property, reports on a poll soliciting Israeli opinion on whether the country should or should not attack Iran's nuclear facilities:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A wide majority of Israelis either oppose an Israeli strike on Iran or would favour an attack only if it was carried out with U.S. agreement, an opinion poll showed on Thursday.
The survey by the University of Maryland and the Israeli Dahaf Institute was released before talks next week between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama on Iran's nuclear programme.
The poll found that 34 percent of the 500 people surveyed believed that Israel should not strike Iran and 42 percent said it should attack only if the United States backed the decision.
Only 19 percent believed Israel should attack even without the support of Washington, which said on Wednesday that diplomacy and increased sanctions to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions have time to work.

Now, let's rewrite Lubell's lede to provide an accurate counter-representation of the facts:

A wide majority of Israelis (61%) either support an Israeli strike on Iran or would favour an attack if it was carried out with U.S. agreement, an opinion poll showed on Thursday.

And by the way, over half of Americans feel the same:

Respondents also were asked their opinion of Israel's taking pre-emptive military action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Overall, 53 percent favor it, 21.4 percent oppose, and 25.6 have no opinion.

Reuters, public relations wing for Iran

Reuters continues with its ludicrous and journalistically indefensible efforts to downplay the Iranian nuclear weapons program and conceal explicit Iranian threats to commit genocide.

The agency runs three stories, two by self-censoring Iranian correspondent, Parisa Hafezi, the third by hardcore propagandist, Alistair Lyon, employing a combination of euphemisms, egregious factual omissions, and sanitized reporting to portray a fantasy world where Iran is merely pursuing electrical power and where the regime's military threats are solely a defensive response to Western aggression.  Here's Hafezi running interference:

Still, a top U.S. intelligence official said last week that while U.S. spy services believed Iran would respond if attacked, they thought it was unlikely to start a conflict.
Israel and the United States do not rule out military action against Iran if sanctions and diplomacy fail to rein in its nuclear energy campaign.
Senior U.N. inspectors have begun their second round of talks in Tehran in three weeks, seeking Iranian explanations with respect to intelligence about "possible military dimensions" to the Iranian nuclear program.
Iran denies Western accusations that it is covertly seeking the means to build nuclear weapons and in recent weeks has again vowed no nuclear retreat, but also voiced willingness to resume negotiations with world powers without preconditions.
Iran says it is enriching uranium solely as fuel for a future network of nuclear power stations, not for bombs.

And again here after Iran refused yesterday to allow U.N. inspector access to its nuclear sites:

As sanctions mount, ordinary Iranians are suffering from the effects of soaring prices and a collapsing currency. Several Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed over the past two years in bomb attacks that Tehran has blamed on its arch-adversary Israel.

In response, Iran has issued a series of statements asserting its right to self-defense and threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil tanker route.

The collapse of the nuclear talks came as Iran seems increasingly isolated, with some experts seeing the Islamic republic's mounting defiance in response to sanctions against its oil industry and financial institutions as evidence that it is in no mood to compromise with the West.

Elections on March 2 are expected to be won by supporters of Khamenei, an implacable enemy of the West.

The failure of the two-day visit by the International Atomic Energy Agency could now hamper any resumption of wider nuclear negotiations between Iran and six world powers as the sense grows that Tehran feels it is being backed into a corner.

And here's Reuters correspondent Lyon, writing of Iran's Supreme Leader (we love the Orwellian ring of that sobriquet):

This month Khamenei said sanctions would not alter Iran's nuclear course, military threats would "harm America" and any nation or group fighting Israel, thought to be the Middle East's only nuclear-armed power, would have Tehran's backing.
"In response to threats of oil embargo and war, we have our own threats to impose at the right time," he declared.
Khamenei has in the past denied that Iran seeks atomic bombs, saying: "It is against our Islamic thoughts."
But he has shown little interest in genuinely assuaging Western worries about Iran's activities, authorizing what the U.N. nuclear watchdog regards as only incomplete cooperation, as well as intermittent talks with six world powers that Western officials suspect Tehran pursues primarily to gain more time to attain nuclear "breakout" capability.
The bespectacled cleric, who ultimately decides all matters of state, including nuclear and foreign policy, simply does not trust the United States, once described by his late mentor Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as a wolf to Iran's lamb.

Ah yes, poor Iran is being unfairly persecuted for a perfectly innocent "nuclear energy campaign" (to which it refuses to allow independent inspection under its NPT obligations) and only "in response", has the country "issued a series of statements asserting its right to self-defense".  You know, like threatening to commit genocide against the Jews.

The Iranian lamb.  And its Reuters udder.

Parisa Hafezi continues to self-censor; the truth continues to suffer

In a piece about inspectors from the United Nations IAEA arriving in Iran to try, yet again, to obtain cooperation for their investigation into the country's nuclear weapons program -- er, sorry -- disputed medical isotopes program, Reuters correspondent Parisa Hafezi ties herself into knots to avoid stating the obvious:

Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful but its refusal to curb uranium enrichment, which can have both civilian and military ends, while shifting a key part of it to a remote mountain bunker protected from air strikes and continuing to restrict IAEA access, has raised concerns.

As everyone knows, medical isotope programs are routinely moved to mountain bunkers to protect them from air strikes.

Nothing to see here; move along.

Reuters and self-censorship

Reuters correspondent Parisa Hafezi has written literally hundreds of stories about Iran's nuclear program.  In next to none of them, does she acknowledge that scientists at the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have concluded that Iran has engaged in all aspects of developing a nuclear bomb.  Rather, the Reuters' reporter is bent on obfuscating the matter, characterizing the conflict as merely a he said, she said dispute between two equally credible partisans:

The West accuses Iran of covertly trying to develop the means to produce nuclear bombs with its uranium enrichment program. Iran, the world's No. 5 crude oil exporter, says its nuclear facilities are part of a peaceful energy program and it would retaliate for any attack on them.

Hafezi is based in Tehran with 16 Reuters employees and according to this story, "the Reuters offices are under constant surveillance and have experienced several break-ins; staffers are convinced that e-mails and telephone lines are bugged".

Hafezi is also reported to have "endured beatings, interrogations and raids on her office and home for critical reporting [of the Iranian regime]".

If these accounts are true, Hafezi and Reuters clearly fear reprisals for any perceived failure to toe the Iranian government line in the agency's coverage of the country's nuclear weapons program.

While we sympathize with Hafezi's plight, Reuters should be informing readers that its reporting in Iran is subject to self-censorship due to concerns for the safety of their staffers there.

Self-censoring, in this case, appears to be a reflection of Reuters correspondents' instincts for self-preservation.

Failure to disclose that self-censorship is unethical and a reflection of Reuters instincts for corporate preservation.

The West, yada, suspects, yada, Iran, yada

In a nearly 1,700-word magnum opus about Iran and the impact international sanctions are having on its economy, Reuters correspondents Niluksi Koswanage and Parisa Hafezi tell us:

The sanctions have been imposed to halt Iran's nuclear programme, which the West believes is being used to develop a nuclear bomb. Iran's leadership says the nuclear programme is peaceful, and it is willing to endure sanctions to maintain it as a national right.
Last month, Iran took the important step of beginning production of highly enriched uranium at a new facility hidden deep under a mountain, where it would be difficult for U.S. or Israeli warplanes to destroy it.
Israel and Western countries have accused Iran of working to develop a nuclear bomb, a charge dismissed by Tehran.

For the 700th+ time, Reuters attempts to obfuscate reality by stating that Israel and the amorphous "West" merely suspect Iran is developing a nuclear bomb and that of course, Iran denies this.  To Reuters, a perfectly symmetrical claim and rebuttal between two partisans.

Nearly 1,700 words of blather and nary a mention of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency and its many independent reports concluding that Iran has engaged in all aspects of developing nuclear weapons:

The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:
• Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
• Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex, Section C.3);
• The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
• Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).

These are the facts Reuters correspondents are desperate to conceal from public view, even as they drum into the minds of their readers, a stale and meaningless propaganda mantra intended to misinform and confuse.

This is one sick media company.

Meanwhile, in Jerusalem....

Even as Reuters refuses to report on Iran's call and religious justification for the annihilation of Israel and genocide of the Jews as disseminated on the regime's website, the agency's correspondents are busy condemning the Jews for graffiti spray painted in Jerusalem:

(Reuters) - A Jerusalem monastery, built on the site where tradition says the tree used in the making of Jesus's cross once stood, was defaced with "Death to Christians" graffiti on Tuesday.
The words "Price Tag" daubed on a vandalised car parked outside the 11th-century Monastery of the Cross suggested that militant Jewish settlers were responsible and police said they were investigating that possibility as well as other angles.

Keep in mind that Reuters was similarly quick to accuse Jewish settlers of vandalism in the Arab village of Tuba Zangaria last October but has failed to follow up with reported evidence that it was local Arab villagers, not Jewish settlers, who likely committed the crime.

So, all a Muslim has to do to convince Reuters that Jews have vandalized property, and to persuade the agency to commit line space and three correspondents to report on this, is to spray paint "price tag" somewhere -- anywhere.

Whereas, if an Islamic government, heavily engaged in developing nuclear weapons, calls for the genocide of six million people on religious grounds and provides targeting maps pinpointing the greatest population density of that people for maximum kill ratios, Reuters correspondents are out to lunch.  

This is one sick media company.

How are those medical isotopes coming?

An article appearing on an Iranian website endorsed by that country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has called for the annhilation of Israel and genocide of the Jews.

We're certain Reuters will find some way to downplay the news (if the agency even reports on it).

The article also states:

Israel is a satanic media outlet with bombers

Actually, we thought that was a more apt description of Reuters.

Thomson Reuters flushes its Trust Principles down the loo (Part II)

In our post just below, we cited a hysterical and wholly one-sided opinion piece by Reuters correspondents William Maclean, Peter Apps, Andrew Quinn, Mark Hosenball, and Tabassum Zakaria prophesying virtual Armageddon should Israel launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear weapons facilities -- er, sorry, disputed energy and medical isotope facilities.

Reuters normally disguises its opinion pieces with the ambiguous and scientific-sounding "Analysis" banner so that de facto propaganda can be sold on to hundreds of other media outlets as dispassionate inquiry, but in the case of the aforementioned story, even that banner is conspicuously missing.  With continuing, flagrant violations of their employer's corporate governance charter and handbook of ethical standards, Reuters correspondents simply have no shame.

Yesterday, we attached a few editorial comments to Reuters' biased litany of prophesied events associated with a possible Israeli military strike against Iran, but the central propagandistic message to which we wish to call attention, a message Reuters is intent on peddling to its audience, is that Israel is alone -- both in its assessment of the danger of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and in the increasingly-evident reality that it (Israel) will have to act to defend itself against Iranian threats of genocide.

Reuters correspondents embed the propagandistic message of Israeli isolation into their reporting with a barrage of entirely one-sided claims and assertions, while willfully omitting essential countervailing evidence from sources other than Israeli officials.

Correspondents Maclean and Co. for example, want readers to believe that an Israeli strike on Iran, with military or moral support from the United States, will unleash a torrent of anti-Israel and anti-American Muslim sentiment in the Middle East:

- Anti-U.S. sentiment would be inflamed in Muslim countries, especially Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. Hamas and Hezbollah would be likely to intensify attacks making a Middle East settlement even more unlikely.

- "If the Israelis think they can attack Iran and remain immune they are living in a fools' paradise," said Farhang Jahanpour of the Oxford University Faculty of Oriental Studies.  He said a raid would create "huge anti-Israeli feeling" and an "Islamic backlash" in the region.

Of course, the United States and Israel have long been considered "Big Satan" and "Little Satan" by Muslims in the Middle East, and Israel in particular, is not interested in winning any popularity contests with Hamas, Hezbollah or Syria.  But the 72 percent of Lebanon's population not Shia would likely be thrilled with the decapitation of Hezbollah's patron.

Moreover, Reuters completely ignores the fear and loathing of Shi'ite Iran demonstrated by Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia and Gulf states like the United Arab Emirates, where officials have not only endorsed punishing economic sanctions against Iran but actively solicited the U.S. to pursue military action, i.e., "cut off the head of the snake".

We know that Arab states, including Egypt, have tacitly accommodated the movement of Israeli warships as a signal to Iran and reportedly provided Israel with permission to use their air space in an attack on Iran.

Maclean and Co. predictably mention none of this, cite none of this, in their agitprop because it would distract from their campaign to brand Israel as a lone loose cannon and to solicit public condemnation of the Jewish state for seeking to survive in the face of palpable threats of genocide.

Thomson Reuters flushes its Trust Principles down the loo (Part I)

In a desperately hysterical piece of agitprop and fear mongering engineered to stir up anti-Israel sentiment, Reuters correspondents William Maclean, Peter Apps, Andrew Quinn, Mark Hosenball, and Tabassum Zakaria don't even feign impartial reporting as they assemble every catastrophic scenario ever imagined, a host of inveterate Israel-haters, and a variety of cherry-picked quotes to warn that:

An Israeli raid on Iran's nuclear facilities would deliver a painful shock to the global economy, revive flagging Islamist militancy and possibly drag the United States into a regional war whether it backed its ally's attack or not.

Here's the list, not exhaustive, compiled by Reuters correspondents of those events prophesied to occur if Israel launches a military strike against Iran's nuclear weapons program:

- any doubts Tehran entertained about the wisdom of building a nuclear weapon would vanish the moment the strike occurred [we couldn't agree more, ed].

- Iran would expel International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and quit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ending any possibility of a negotiated solution to the nuclear issue [and after all, negotiations have been so fruitful, ed].

- a raid would only delay, not destroy Iran's program. And once it had recovered, Iran would probably seek to develop nuclear weapons [as if they're not doing this now, ed].

- A strike on Iran and Iran's response, including attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital for oil shipments, or an attack on Saudi oilfields, would lead to a sharp rise in oil prices that could seriously harm the U.S. economy, jeopardizing President Barack Obama's chances for re-election [yes, we're certain Reuters correspondents are very much concerned about that, ed].

- Saudi Arabia would be forced to use all its spare output capacity, a crucial safety cushion for oil markets.

- the possibility of Iran mining the straits, attacking ships as it did during the Iran-Iraq war, or challenging the legality of the passage of some vessels through its territorial waters.

- Tehran has warned several times it may seal off the Strait of Hormuz, choking the supply of Gulf crude and gas, if attacked or if sanctions mean it cannot export its oil.

- Possible Iranian actions could include harrying tanker traffic in the Gulf with fast attack boats, seizing uninhabited Gulf islands claimed by other states or grabbing hostages from passing civilian or military ships, stoking trouble in Sunni Muslim-ruled Arab states with restive Shi'ite Muslim communities and orchestrating attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere using militant "proxies" such as Hezbollah.

- If the Iranian government interprets the strike as a fully-fledged attempt at regime change, it might adopt a more muscular response could include ballistic-missile salvos on civilian and military targets in the Gulf.

- A study by former senior British intelligence official said the "The US would be assumed complicit, and would become embroiled in defending Israel against a counter-attack. This would stretch the U.S. military."

- In an indication of a divergence in Israeli and Western views, a senior former British intelligence official wrote in a private analysis in 2011 that the West had two objectives: prevent the Iranian bomb, and also "prevent Iran being bombed.  Both outcomes would be potentially disastrous for our national security," he wrote.  Referring to a strike, he went on, "the likely damage (to Iran's program) would outweigh the benefits" [now there's a cogent argument, ed.]

- Anti-U.S. sentiment would be inflamed in Muslim countries, especially Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. Hamas and Hezbollah would be likely to intensify attacks making a Middle East settlement even more unlikely.

- "If the Israelis think they can attack Iran and remain immune they are living in a fools' paradise," said Farhang Jahanpour of the Oxford University Faculty of Oriental Studies.  He said a raid would create "huge anti-Israeli feeling" and an "Islamic backlash" in the region.

- Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said in a January interview with The Real News website a strike would be a "disaster for us more than for Israel in the short run, and a fundamental disaster for Israel in the long run."  Neither the Russians or Europeans would side with America in any resulting conflict. He said that the United States could be "forced out of the region," a development he suggested would imperil Israel's existence.

My, we're breathless.  The only analysis provided by Maclean and Co. to ostensibly balance their frantic handwringing, is that of Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, a piece of journalistic legerdemain executed quite deliberately of course, to give readers the false impression that Israel stands alone against Iran.

We'll tackle that fabrication in Part II.