Israel's weapons

As Israel admits that its troops may have used white phosphorus shells in contravention of international law, I've published an Independent Minds blog piece about how mentioning Israel's nukes is officially taboo.

An unsung whistleblower

I've done a piece today for Index on Censorship about Atif Amin, the customs investigator who is being investigated by the IPCC (yes, really, the Independent Police Complaints Commission) over allegations that he broke the official secrets act.

He isn't a whistleblower in the true sense of the word as all he did was comment on information that was already in public domain, that he was prevented from investigating the A.Q. Khan nuclear smuggling network after he found that it was smuggling proliferation-sensitive materiel to Libya.

As I commented in an Independent Minds blog, what seems to have upset the state is that he (very mildly) questioned whether it was a good idea to watch Khan proliferating for a further three and a half years. During this time the network supplied Iran and caused Tony Blair so much worry that he invaded Iraq.

So why is the IPCC investigating Amin and questionning BBC journalists, while the killers of Jean Charles de Menezes get away scot free - not to mention the proliferators?

Radioactive leak

In the Guardian, Ian Black reports on a row over leaked claims that the International Atomic Energy Agency found traces of processed uranium at the site of Syria's alleged nuclear reactor, which was bombed by Israel.

Melissa Fleming, an IAEA spokeswoman, said:

"We regret that people are trying to prejudge the IAEA's technical assessment... We are, however, accustomed to these kinds of efforts to hype and undermine the process before every meeting of the IAEA board."

The IAEA did not challenge the substance of Monday's revelations about the uranium traces. The concern is that the leak of confidential information could jeopardise future Syrian cooperation.

This could be very significant, although the IAEA would look a bit silly complaining about leaks and then confirming/denying them.

As usual, Black mentions in his article that:

Israel is an undeclared nuclear power and, unlike Syria, has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Piffle

I've done a piece for the Indy's Open House today, asking if North Korea's announcement that it will restart reprocessing plutonium is one more blunder to add to the Bush administration’s counterproliferation record.

Just the one crucial fact left out

The BBC has reported that:

Iran has been asked by the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, for a substantive response to allegations that it is developing a nuclear weapon.

In typical BBC style, the story trades in claim and counterclaim, appearing to be balanced:

Iran says its nuclear programme is purely for peaceful purposes.

Allegations about its nuclear programme are unsubstantiated, says the country's IAEA envoy, Ali Asghar Soltanieh.

Mr Soltanieh said that Iran had not been allowed to see any of the documents which allegedly back up US accusations of a military nuclear programme.

But apparently IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei isn't having any of it:

Speaking to the IAEA's board, Mr El Baradei said Iran should provide "substantive information to support its statements and access to relevant documentations and individuals".

Iran "should clarify the extent to which the documentation is factually correct and where, as it asserts, such information has been fabricated or where it relates to non-nuclear purposes", he added.

Except that, if you read El Baradei's statement to the IAEA board, he also said this:

"I call upon Member States which provided the Agency with documentation related to the alleged studies to authorize the Agency to share it with Iran."

The IAEA is asking Iran to comment on documents that it can't show it because the states that provided them won't let it. It isn't clear why the very balanced BBC didn't mention this.

More of the same

On Comment is Free yesterday, Inayat Bunglawala makes the kind of points I have previously made about the sexed-up threat from Iran's nuclear programme.

In particular, he singles out Con Coughlin of the Telegraph, who is repeatedly fed what turn out to be inconsistent stories by MI6. John Scarlett and the Iraq dossier get a mention too.

Iran and Israel again

On Comment is Free, I've got a new piece challenging the spin coming out of Israel on Iran.

It also links to Seymour Hersh's new piece in the New Yorker, which suggests that the US is already covertly engaged in Iran.

Less than meets the eye

I've got a piece on Comment is Free today asking whether recent revelations about nuclear trader A.Q. Khan are as scary as has been made out.

Wot, no nukes?

The New York Times reports that Israel has carried out an exercise that US officials say "appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities."

The BBC also reports the story. Neither mention that Israel has nuclear weapons already.

Wintour spins for Brown

Patrick Wintour doesn't really care who he spins for, as long as they feed him stories. In the Guardian today he reports that:

Gordon Brown will call for an acceleration of nuclear power today in a speech to business leaders designed to show he is focused on the long term and will not buckle in the face of negative headlines.

Except that:

He was forced by the courts to hold a second, as yet incomplete, consultation on building nuclear stations so he will not make an announcement today in case he is accused again of pre-empting the outcome. But it is clear that he sees a new generation of stations as vital to Britain's energy security and emission targets.

So Brown won't actually call for an acceleration in nuclear power. But with Wintour to spin for him, he doesn't need to.

Some straight talking

No spin or mincing of words in the Telegraph's lead story. US neo-con John Bolton says "We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb". Very scary.

Rather less straight talking from Tony Blair, who again failed to produce any basis for his September 2002 claim - in Parliament - that Iraq could get the bomb in "a year or two". It was made up.