Reuters turkey stuffed with fatuous assertions

In an op-ed dressed as "analysis" so Reuters can sell the turkey to other media outlets, correspondent Peter Graff stuffs the bird with one of Reuters most ludicrous assertions yet:

(Reuters) - Iran's nuclear standoff with the West has led to much harsher words and new economic sanctions, but Tehran has yet to cross the red lines that would prompt Israel or the United States to contemplate military action.

Does Graff actually want readers to believe that Israel and the United States are not preparing for military action against Iran?  Does Graff think Israel will wait until Iran has tested a nuclear device before attacking Iran's nuclear facilities?  Does he seriously believe the odds for such an attack haven't jumped with the release of the latest UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran's nuclear program?  

We wonder if Graff has even read the IAEA report.  Here are a few of its choice findings:

Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency has regularly received new information. [...]

The Agency [IAEA] is still awaiting a substantive response from Iran to Agency requests for further information in relation to announcements made by Iran concerning the construction of ten new uranium enrichment facilities, the sites for five of which, according to Iran, have been decided, and the construction of one of which was to have begun by the end of the last Iranian year (20 March 2011) or the start of this Iranian year.  [...]

Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has not suspended work on all heavy water related projects...

Since its visit to the Heavy Water Production Plant (HWPP) on 17 August 2011, the Agency, in a letter to Iran dated 20 October 2011, requested further access to HWPP. The Agency has yet to receive a reply to that letter, and is again relying on satellite imagery to monitor the status of HWPP.  Based on recent images, the HWPP appears to be in operation. [...]

In resolution 1929 (2010), the Security Council reaffirmed Iran’s obligations to take the steps required by the Board of Governors in its resolutions GOV/2006/14 and GOV/2009/82, and to cooperate fully with the Agency on all outstanding issues, particularly those which give rise to concerns about the possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, including by providing access without delay to all sites, equipment, persons and documents requested by the Agency. Since August 2008, Iran has not engaged with the Agency in any substantive way on this matter. [...]

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).

So while Graff acknowledges that:

Some media coverage has suggested a new Middle East war could be coming, if the leadership of Israel decides that it cannot tolerate a nuclear bomb in the hands of a state committed to its destruction.

the Reuters correspondent nevertheless digs up a British "defense analyst" to patronize Israel:

"Up until now, President Bush and President Obama have said don't do it [take military action against Iran]. That's been documented," he said. "This is the multi-billion dollar question: are the Israelis misguided and impulsive enough not to ask the Americans for permission?

Are the Israelis "misguided" and "impulsive" enough to defend themselves in the face of a catastrophic risk to their existence if Obama fails to give them "permission"?

Gobble gobble.