Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan’s polemical take on politics, economics and foreign affairs

Sorry, Melanie, your pants are on fire

The Daily Mail columnist talked nonsense about Iran and the IAEA on last night's Question Time.

By Mehdi Hasan Published 27 January 2012 18:18

On last night's Question Time, well-known Middle East expert and respected nuclear analyst Melanie Phillips proclaimed:

The IAEA and virtually every western government believes that Iran is racing to develop a nuclear weapon. It is behaving entirely as if it is. It is boasting that it is.

Put aside the nonsensical and deluded claim that Iran has "boasted" it is building nukes (eh? Where? When? That would be big news, wouldn't it? We might even have seen it mentioned on the front page of the Mail...had it happened...).

Instead, focus for a moment on her confident claim regarding the beliefs of the "IAEA and virtually every western government". For a start, the IAEA has said no such thing. Here's the crucial bit from the IAEA's "hawkish" November 2011 report:

[T]he Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement

Admittedly, the IAEA does go on to point out that

the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and
therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

but that isn't the same as saying the IAEA believes Iran is "racing to develop a nuclear weapon", is it? It isn't even close. (Phillips omitted to mention, and none of her fellow panellists seemed aware of, the fact that the IAEA is no longer neutral on this subject: as WikiLeaks revealed, new IAEA boss Yukiya Amano told the Americans in 2009 that "he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program".)

From the New Yorker in November:

A nuanced assessment of the I.A.E.A. report was published by the Arms Control Association (A.C.A.), a nonprofit whose mission is to encourage public support for effective arms control. The A.C.A. noted that the I.A.E.A. did "reinforce what the nonproliferation community has recognized for some times: that Iran engaged in various nuclear weapons development activities until 2003, then stopped many of them, but continued others." (The American intelligence community reached the same conclusion in a still classified 2007 estimate.) The I.A.E.A.'s report "suggests," the A.C.A. paper said, that Iran "is working to shorten the timeframe to build the bomb once and if it makes that decision. But it remains apparent that a nuclear-armed Iran is still not imminent nor is it inevitable." Greg Thielmann, a former State Department and Senate Intelligence Committee analyst who was one of the authors of the A.C.A. assessment, told me, "There is troubling evidence suggesting that studies are still going on, but there is nothing that indicates that Iran is really building a bomb." He added, "Those who want to drum up support for a bombing attack on Iran sort of aggressively misrepresented the report."

Then there is the official, consensus view of the US government's national intelligence community, which concluded in 2007, with "high confidence", that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform uranium into a nuclear weapon had been shut down since 2003, and also said with high confidence that the halt "was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure". This view, as of 2011, had not changed.

How about the Israeli view? They're all hawks over in Tel Aviv, right? Wrong. From Ha'aretz on 18 January:

The intelligence assessment Israeli officials will present later this week to Dempsey indicates that Iran has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb.

The Israeli view is that while Iran continues to improve its nuclear capabilities, it has not yet decided whether to translate these capabilities into a nuclear weapon - or, more specifically, a nuclear warhead mounted atop a missile. Nor is it clear when Iran might make such a decision.

So what on earth was Phillips talking about? And why did the other panellists, or the presenter, not challenge her hyperbole and sabre-rattling? Judging from last night's Question Time, I fear we are in Iraq/2003 territory once more. God help us all...

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Iran

More from Mehdi Hasan

View the discussion thread.

78 comments

Sun, 2012-01-29 18:10 — Buckskins (not verified)

{"@ Buckskins

Tell me why is the US Navy parading a carrier force or two in the Straits of Hormuz? Does the US have any allies in the neighbourhood? You betcha!"}
-----------------------
To kick the crap out of any Iranians that have not learned their lessons.
------------------------
{"And why are oil sales denominated in the Yankee dollar? Yes, we know the BRICS and others are fed up with being betoken to Uncle Sam's global currency but in ten years.....who knows."}
-------------
Who cares, in ten years the US will be using only domestic oil.
-----------------
{Reagan scuttling out of the Lebanon, not to mention Eisenhower; Nixon going cap-in-hand to Mao because he couldn't hack it with the big boys }
--------------
What a load of shit...or in the local vernacular...What a load of shite.
------------------
didn't help save 'Nam; losing in Iraq, winding down in Afghanistan and dead-heating in Korea these geopolitical downs are not good omens.
----------------
Nam ? Y'aal couldn't even get a handle on a bunch of drunken Irishmen.
------------------
Iraq, Who was kicked out of Basra by the insurgents? The Iraqi people live in a democracy, which is more than you can say for your country.
-----------------------

Winding down in Afghanistan....Were we to make it our 51st state?

------------------------

Last time I looked, South Korea was still a free country.

-----------------------------

{Israel talks a good fight but the consequences for the world, yet alone that biblical nation, if she attacks Iran are not good.}
-------------------------
What are you? A stand up comedian?
-----------------------------
{However, the consensus of opinion is that she has no other option even with the groundswell of Sunni support moving in her favour}
---------------------
Yes you are, and very good at it.

-------------------------------

Tue, 2012-01-31 15:38 — Adam (not verified)

@ Awake or should that be asleep. Maybe not for the world and thats a big maybe, but for the Iranians... definitely!

Wed, 2012-02-01 17:38 — Al4

When Nick Griffin appeared on QT there were protests, serious doubts as to the BBC's decision etc etc. When Melanie Phillips appears - what? Yes, I am equating her with the BNP. She is no better.

Tue, 2012-01-31 16:10 — Julia Harris (not verified)

Lets ignore this...

"Tehran claims it is developing nuclear technology for civilian purposes but the latest report from the UN's nuclear watchdog said Iran was carrying out work that could only be related to the future development of a nuclear weapon."

Tue, 2012-01-31 16:31 — Buckskins (not verified)

That's right Mark. We will just let the Iranians or anyone else crap all over us instead.

Mon, 2012-01-30 19:33 — Freeman2

Everybody knows that nuclear weapons are simply there as a deterrent. I mean, that's why Britain has them, and France, and Israel, isn't it?

Tue, 2012-01-31 17:18 — Islamshame (not verified)

Why are we waiting?
Just nuke Iran and delete it from planet earth.
Wouldn't it be nice to send all those Lucifer's followers to hell?

Sat, 2012-01-28 16:56 — FA

Test

Sun, 2012-01-29 20:31 — Politico (not verified)

Celeriac and Ken,
Please allow me the opportunity to respond to your comments.

Melanie Phillips resonates with the real beliefs of the hard working British people particularly Labour voters. It is is true that at times she is close to the bone, but none the less, her statements on imigration, welfare and law and order are what the working class in the North of England believe and are thinking.Ed Miliband should stop delivering policy on the believes of left leaning thinktanks and listen to the British people.

Sun, 2012-01-29 21:22 — demonax3

Mrs Phillips inspired Anders Breivik according to him. Isn't that enough!!

Sun, 2012-01-29 21:22 — Julia Harris (not verified)

Murray is excellent, sums it up beautifully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3dBzslDdQ_g

Sat, 2012-01-28 17:54 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

In the twentieth-century how often were people who praised or at least did not abuse the USSR told to go there - 'if you like it so much!'
The trouble is most of the Neo-cons and fellow-travellers are over here and have no intention of going to Israel whether that state is at war or at peace.
The majority of these armchair warriors are the' I'll hold you coat' type. Stay outside the ropes!
What if Israel attacks Iran during the US presidential race and the West is then faced with a stand-off.

And when the ME oil flow becomes a trickle and other sources hike their prices in sympathy -try explaining that to some US hick hillbilly down to his last gas-dollar.

Geopolitics

Sat, 2012-01-28 18:11 — Buckskins (not verified)

"What if Israel attacks Iran during the US presidential race and the West is then faced with a stand-off.

"And when the ME oil flow becomes a trickle and other sources hike their prices in sympathy -try explaining that to some US hick hillbilly down to his last gas-dollar"

In ten years time that US hick hillbilly will be burning US gas entirely. In addition the US gets very little of its imported oil from the mid east. Now tell me what you will be doing when Scotland starts keeping its oil for its own coffers.

If Israel attacks Iran during the US presidential race, or any other time, it will not be a standoff. It will be a done deal.

Tue, 2012-01-31 20:06 — Maria111

“She is an uninformed reactionary, with a track record of misrepresenting issues and has no place in serious journalism.” The case of Melanie Phillips is more complicated. She is a rabid tribalist (in other words a consummate racist) that prefers to adore the center of her commitment, the apartheid state of Israel, from afar, from the midst of Western Europe and away from the various newcomers to the "invented" state of Israel. She is not interested in a diligent research of the matters she is so eager to pontificate on, since this can contradict to her preconceived arguments. For Melanie, the truth about ME has anti-Israel bias and thus must be ignored. Her foul and racist way of thinking had had a tragic influence on the Norwegian killer, but the concept of responsibility is foreign to her, which means that the noble Jewish tradition of humanism is foreign to her as well.

Sun, 2012-01-29 23:58 — LovestoSpooge (not verified)

And Saddam has weapons of mass destruction! Afghanistan is planning massive terror attacks! They will get there war, because we can't let them have that oil, uh, I mean those nuclear weapons. That's it.

Mon, 2012-01-30 21:11 — Awake!

mmm. so blair waged an illegal war therfore we should never consider the option again. Crap logic, er, peace in our time!!
We shoudn't entertain conflict unless we're willing to send our own sons and (incredibly )daughters?? mmm more crap logic since we have a prefessional army. (unbelievabe what some people write)
Oh and by the way this woman on telly might be wrong but that don't make mehdi right.
So here's a question, i wonder if one of the knee jerk reactionary lefties might answer since they seemingly are pro iran being tooled up (i guess because they perceive right wingers saying they shoudn't). The question is, do they really think the world is safer with the Iranians having a nuclear bomb?? R E A L LY ? ? ? ?
Oh you do!!!! head of IT procurement under brown and balls no doubt, how's that working out in the private sector now?
do feel free to explain why that is, the iranians hving a bomb i mean- oh, in case you're thinking of telling me it's their right, please understand that there are no such things as rights- complex but true.

Mon, 2012-01-30 21:14 — JimmyRushmore (not verified)

@Freeman

The problem with a deterrent is it only works if the other side is afraid of dying.

Fri, 2012-01-27 18:45 — McMac (not verified)

I’m not a great fan of any country owning atomic weapons, but Iran is one of those that has that extra excitement of religious nutjobbery to add to the mix.

Do we want a nation who hang homosexuals, kicking out there last few moments strangled by blue nylon rope, with the capability to build their own atomic weapons.

I know what the answer is and so should you, the answer is no!

“Not decided yet…but building the capability” is to close to “SURPRISE! Look what we’ve done!” for my liking and a little hyperbole on the subject is no bad thing.

Sat, 2012-01-28 19:20 — Julia Harris (not verified)

"I note that while Mel Phillips was allowed to spout her reactionary, scare-mongering rubbish in full, the BBC not only cut Mark Steel short but censored him."

Briar - yes she is the problem of course, she is a Journalist, but what about when Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his Own Words...should we ignore them??

"See what has become of Israel. They [the West] gathered the most criminal people in the world and stationed them in our region with lies and fabricated scenarios. They waged wars, committed massive aggression… and made millions of people homeless…Today, it is clear that Israel is the most hated regime in the world… It is not useful for its masters [the West] anymore. They are in doubt now. They wonder whether to continue spending money on this regime or not…But whether they want it or not, with God's grace, this regime will be annihilated and Palestinians and other regional nations will be rid of its bad omen."

Sat, 2012-01-28 19:25 — Julia Harris (not verified)