On March 12, 2013 Senator Chuck Schumer, in a letter to his constituents, sought to defend his decision to support S.RES 65 and in doing so made a number of non-factual claims about Iran’s nuclear program.

The third paragraph of his letter is as follows:

“In the past decade, Iran has developed nuclear technologies which U.S. and other nations’ intelligence agencies believe are intended to produce nuclear weapons.  In November of 2007, the Administration released a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) giving evidence that Iran had operated a clandestine nuclear-weapons program until 2003.  The nation continues to enrich uranium into weapons-grade nuclear materials in violation of United Nations resolutions, and in November of 2009 disclosed that it has a partially constructed enrichment facility near Qom.  Although President Ahmadinejad maintains that these facilities are designed to generate civilian nuclear energy, experts say that the type of fuel that they produce is sufficient to arm a nuclear warhead.  With such fuel, experts argue, Iran could quickly re-instate its nuclear program and thus continues to pose a significant proliferation risk. There should be no lingering doubt that Iran represents an immediate threat to our global security. With Iran still in hot pursuit of nuclear weapons, we must do everything we can to bring their ambitions to a halt.”

The foremost error here is the assertion that Iran “continues to enrich uranium to weapons grade nuclear materials” and that “experts say that the type of fuel that they produce is sufficient to arm a nuclear warhead.” These statements are completely false according to quarterly reporting by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the international organization that reports to the UN and Security Council and  inspects Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities roughly once per week and operates cameras at Iran’s nuclear sites.

The IAEA continues to report that Iran is not enriching uranium to weapons grade.

• Iran, under IAEA supervision, has enriched uranium to 5% and 20%, levels necessary to operate civilian nuclear power plants and a medical research reactor but not sufficient for nuclear weapons. Uranium enriched at 5% and 20% levels is also known as low enriched uranium. It is not possible to develop a nuclear weapon with these levels of enriched uranium. (“Uranium and Dirty Bombs”, Federation of American Scientists)
• According to the IAEA, Iran has not produced any weapons grade uranium. Iran has not produced any 90% enriched uranium, or highly enriched uranium, which is considered “weapons-grade” and is necessary to build a bomb.

U.S. Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper reiterated in his debriefing of the 2013 Worldwide Assessment of the US Intelligence Community before Congress that Iran is not producing weapons grade uranium:

• Clapper said that if Iran were to enrich to weapons grade, it would be detected.  Clapper said “Iran has made progress last year that better positions it to produce weapons-grade uranium (WGU), using its declared facilities and uranium stockpiles, should it choose to do so.” (Statement for the Record Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, James R. Clapper. March 12, 2013)
• Clapper’s testimony directly contradicts the assertion that Iran is “in hot pursuit” of nuclear weapons. Clapper states that “Iran could not divert safeguarded material and produce a weapon-worth of WGU before this activity is discovered.” Essentially he is saying that Iran could not start producing weapons grade uranium to build a bomb without it becoming immediately apparent to the inspectors and the intelligence community.

According to the U.S. intelligence community, Iran has a nuclear program and is seeking nuclear latency, but does not currently have a nuclear weapons program and has not made a decision to actually build a nuclear weapon.

• The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate stated, “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” (2007 National Intelligence Estimate Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities; November 2007)
• Further in this regard, former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said, “Are they [Iran] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability.” (Face the Nation; January 8, 2012)
• Clapper’s testimony also stressed Iran’s nuclear capability, saying that while Iran has nuclear capability, the main issue is the “political will” in Tehran whether to build the bomb. And to reiterate, it is far and wide agreed that the political will there is against this decision for now.

The post No, Iran is not enriching uranium to weapons grade appeared first on Iran Media Fact Check.

Iran is often described in the media as irrational, suicidal and hell-bent on getting a nuclear weapon and destroying Israel. These themes are so oft repeated that they are almost treated as self-evident truths.

That’s why it’s so fascinating to read Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s Worldwide Threat Assessment report that was presented to the U.S. Senate today.

As Director of National Intelligence, Clapper has more access to confidential intelligence reports than anyone else in the U.S.. He not only sees all of the U.S.’s intelligence, but also much of what the Israelis, Europeans and even Russians and others share with the U.S.

There are three key judgments Clapper makes on Iran that must be given due attention.

First, Clapper indirectly explains why efforts by the Israeli Prime Minister and the U.S. Congress to draw a red line for war at the point where Iran would have the “capability” to build nuclear weapons is unwise. In short, Clapper indicates that Iran already is there. Drawing this red line would mean war. The Director of National Intelligence writes:

Tehran has developed technical expertise in a number of areas — including uranium enrichment, nuclear reactors, and ballistic missiles — from which it could draw if it decided to build missile-deliverable nuclear weapons. These technical advancements strengthen our assessment that Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons.

He then adds two critical points: “This makes the central issue its political will to do so,” [emphasis added] while pointing out that “Iran could not divert safeguarded material and produce a weapon-worth of [Weapons Grade Uranium] before this activity is discovered.”

In short, this means that efforts to prevent Iran from the capacity are futile, but we still have the ability to catch Tehran and take action if it were to attempt to rapidly construct a nuclear weapon.

What we have to focus on is to influence Tehran’s presumed desire or sense of need for nuclear weapons. As the intelligence report states, “Iran is developing nuclear capabilities to enhance its security, prestige, and regional influence…” [emphasis added].

That’s a very different situation than the one typically described in the media. It is a situation in which issuing threats and pressures towards that end arguably increase Iran’s desire for a nuclear deterrence. The greater Tehran’s sense of threat from the U.S. — whether military or economic — the greater the lure of nuclear deterrence will be. Indeed, Clapper adds that “Iran’s nuclear decision-making is guided by a cost-benefit approach, which offers the international community opportunities to influence Tehran.”

This brings us to the second key point Clapper makes: While Clapper states that Iran has hegemonic aspirations, much of its strategy is described as defensive. Its missile program, for instance, is “an integral part of its strategy to deter — and if necessary retaliate against — forces in the region, including U.S. forces,” according to Clapper.

This is not to say that Clapper discounts or dismisses the challenge Iran poses to the U.S., but his assessment is devoid of the panic-stricken and sensationalist narrative that hints of the coming Iranian land invasion of the U.S. and its desire to destroy Western civilization.

Making the rulers in Iran bigger than they are ultimately serves Tehran — not Washington.

The third take-away from Clapper is a testament to the faulty trajectory we find ourselves on. He writes:

Iran is growing more autocratic at home and more assertive abroad… Supreme Leader Khamenei’s power and authority are now virtually unchecked, and security institutions, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), have greater influence at the expense of popularly elected and clerical institutions…. Meanwhile, the regime is adopting more oppressive social policies to increase its control over the population, such as further limiting educational and career choices for women.

Clapper lists three factors for this regrettable development: elite and popular grievances, a deteriorating economy, and an uncertain regional dynamic.

The first factor is the doing of the regime itself. The regime stole the votes of the population in 2009 and its intensified repression has only deepened its unpopularity. The third factor — the uncertain regional dynamic — is out of the control of both the regime and the U.S. government.

The second factor contributing to Tehran’s intensified repression at home and assertiveness abroad, however, is due to a combination of the regime’s economic mismanagement and the blind, indiscriminate sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies. Clapper lists in his report how “Iran’s financial outlook has worsened since the 2012 implementation of sanctions on its oil exports and Central Bank.” Yet, he points out, “growing public frustration with the government’s socioeconomic policies has not led to widespread political unrest.” Instead, regular Iranians have seen greater repression at home.

Contrast Clapper’s report with the media discourse — on our options to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, the effect of sanctions or Tehran’s aims — and scary flashbacks from 2003 and Iraq appear.

The White House may have some obvious reasons not to push back against the panic-stricken media narrative too aggressively or too openly, including a desire not to inadvertently signal laxness to either Iran or Israel.

The media itself, however, does not have this excuse.

The post 3 Facts to Note in 2013 Worldwide Threat Assessment Report appeared first on Iran Media Fact Check.

Fact: Iran does not have the capability, nor is it approaching the capability, to pose an “existential threat” to the United States.  

During the January 13, 2013, confirmation hearing considering the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) stated, “A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to the United States as well as Israel.”

The “existential threat” assertion is often made with regard to Israel, but many top Israeli military and intelligence officials reject it. However, the assertion that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an “existential threat” to the United States–meaning it would have the capability to annihilate the entire country–is relatively unusual.

In order to pose a threat of annihilation to the United States, a state would need a nuclear arsenal consisting of a formidable supply of nuclear warheads and inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of reaching all major U.S. cities. The Soviet Union, for instance, had an arsenal of several thousand nuclear tipped missiles and was therefore believed to pose an “existential threat” to the United States. Iran, meanwhile, does not currently possess a nuclear weapon, has not tested or developed a missile that could reach the U.S., and is judged by American and Israeli intelligence agencies to have not made the decision to actually pursue a nuclear weapon.

Yet Gillibrand’s remarks were not off the cuff–she has made similar statements in the past, including in January 2012 when she released a press release that said, “The Iranian regime is becoming an existential threat to the United States and our allies and we must quickly act to enforce a broader set of sanctions.”

This statement is pure hyperbole. Here are the facts:

Even if Iran were to make the decision to successfully build a nuclear weapon–a move that would be detected by the IAEA and U.S. intelligence and other intelligence agencies–and even if Iran were to successfully develop a delivery vehicle for that weapon–which would take two to five years–Iran still would not have the capability to reach the United States with such a weapon, let alone produce enough long range nuclear tipped missiles to wipe out the U.S.

• U.S. intelligence agencies assessed beginning in 1999 that Iran could have the ability to test-fire an ICBM as early as 2015, but that assessment has been increasingly caveated in subsequent intelligence reports. Recently, “an internal report for the U.S. Congress concluded that Iran probably is no longer on track, if it ever was, to having an ocean-crossing missile as soon as 2015.”
• That report, by the the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, concludes that “it is increasingly uncertain whether Iran will be able to achieve ICBM capability by 2015”. (Congressional Research Service, “Iran’s Ballistic Missile and Space Launch Programs”, December 6, 2012)
• The report does mention that Iran is developing and producing medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs), which would not be able to reach the U.S. According to the report, “U.S. intelligence agencies assess such missiles are inherently incapable of carrying nuclear warheads.”
• The Shahab-3, which at 800-1000 km has the greatest estimated range, could reach Israel, Turkey, and portions of southeastern Europe according to the Center for Arms Control. (Center for Arms Control, “Fact Sheet: Iran’s Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Programs”)

A study by Foreign Policy found that even a hypothetical nuclear-armed Iran could not pose an existential threat to the U.S.

• The “Nuclear Annihilation Test (NAT) Index”, commissioned by Foreign Policy magazine, was designed as a way “of systematically and empirically assessing the existential threat that nuclear-weapon states (NWSs), and potential nuclear-weapon states, pose to one another.” (Foreign Policy, “Are We Focusing on the Wrong Nuclear Threat?”, May 24, 2012)
• For the purposes of its simulation, Foreign Policy assumes a hypothetical scenario in which Iran has produced an arsenal of 10 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver these warheads via missiles. Even under these hypothetical assumptions, the test rates the nuclear annihilation threat that Iran could pose the U.S. a 0.5, which signifies a “minimal threat” and is the lowest possible on its scale.

• By comparison, China, a state which is believed to posses around 300 nuclear warheads and has ICBM capability, is listed by the NAT Index as posing the greatest nuclear threat to the US with a NAT score of 6 (out of the maximum 9).

Even if they have nuclear weapons and ICBMs, Iran’s decision makers are not oblivious to the obvious costs of nuclear retaliation and the jeopardy they would put the existence of their own country in if they launched a nuclear attack.

• To this end, a previous IranFact article discusses the near ubiquitous belief of Israeli and American national security officials that the Iranian government is a rational actor.
• Both Israel and the United States possess  second strike capabilities that effectively deter any existential threat that a nuclear Iran may pose. The second strike capabilities of the United States are quite obvious, with the vastness of the country and its nuclear submarines and bombers.
• For Israel, one might easily assume that a few nuclear bombs could completely destroy the tiny country, but the backbone of Israel’s second strike capability lies not on land, but on German-built submarines which are in constant deployment. (Foreign Affairs, “Why Israel Should Trade Its Nukes”, October 25, 2012)

The post Would a nuclear Iran pose an existential threat to the United States? appeared first on Iran Media Fact Check.

A December 6 article by Reuters claims, “Washington says Tehran is enriching uranium to levels that could be used in nuclear weapons.” And on December 10, Reuters wrote “The West suspects Iran is enriching uranium to levels that could be used in weapons…”

Iran, under IAEA supervision, has enriched uranium to 5% and 20%, but not to the 90% required for a nuclear warhead. Uranium enriched to 5% or 20% is not usable in a nuclear weapon. Moreover, the Secretary of Defense and Director of National Intelligence have both reiterated this year that the U.S. does not believe Iran has made the decision to build nuclear weapons, consistent with the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

To Reuters’ credit, they promptly updated their articles with the following prominent correction under the headline:

(Corrects 4th para to show Iran not making weapons-grade uranium)

NIAC will continue to hold the media accountable for incorrect reporting like the above. It is especially important to ensure that facts are checked on issues as controversial as the standoff between the US, Iran, Israel, and the rest of the world over Iran’s nuclear program.

Have you spotted an inaccurate statement in the media? Share it with us here.

The post Reuters Corrects False Claim Iran Enriching Weapons-Grade Uranium appeared first on Iran Media Fact Check.

Less than 24 hours after we issued our action alert demanding a clarification, and after you sent nearly 1,000 emails to the AP through IranFact.org, the AP published a clarification story and reached out to NIAC. Their clarification story acknowledged the expert criticism leveled and addressed the inconstancies in their initial report.

The efforts of not just IranFact.org, but also Bulletin of American Scientists, the Arms Control Association, Glenn Greenwald, Lobelog, and Muhammad Sahimi to expose this story, managed to stop another myth from becoming spun into a fact as part of the push for war with Iran.

While the AP should have got it right the first time, this is an important victory. The officials from the unnamed country who the AP says leaked the graph as part of an effort to make the case for war with Iran now have some explaining to do.  The credibility of the pro-war argument has taken yet another hit.

In the past month, IranFact.org challenged the pro-war crowd’s arguments in the largest newspaper in circulation, the Wall Street Journal, and one of the top wire services, Associated Press. And thanks to your help, both times we won. We didn’t have this in the lead up to war with Iraq. We are forcing a debate on the facts, and this is the debate that will prevent another war of choice.

The post Update: AP Issues Clarification appeared first on Iran Media Fact Check.

The AP should have higher journalistic standards than The Onion.

Yet the AP ran a story entitled, “Graph Suggests Iran Working on Bomb” based on a diagram “leaked by officials from a country critical of Iran’s atomic program to bolster their arguments that Iran’s nuclear program must be halted before it produces a weapon.”

Experts were quick to call foul.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists explained that similar graphs “can be found in nuclear science textbooks and on the Internet” and “would not qualify as proof of a nuclear weapons program.” They found major errors with the graph, stating, “This diagram does nothing more than indicate either slipshod analysis or an amateurish hoax.”

Arms Control Association’s Greg Thielmann criticized the “misleading” headline and the AP’s burying of scientific skepticism.

The Atlantic’s Robert Wright tweeted, “How considerate of the Iranians to label their secret nefarious nuke graph in English!”

And the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald wrote, “This is worse than stenography journalism. It is AP allowing itself, eagerly and gratefully, to be used to put its stamp of credibility on a ridiculous though destructive hoax.”

The AP is read by millions around the world. This single news report will have a serious impact on the debate on Iran and questions about war and peace. Yet the AP is replicating the same irresponsible journalism that we saw in the push to sell war with Iraq.

We all remember how the media was asleep at the wheel and allowed us to be conned into war with Iraq. Journalists reprinted unsubstantiated claims about anthrax, yellow cake, and mushroom clouds without question. We only learned later that officials were laundering their lies through top media outlets as part of a pro-war propaganda campaign. But by then it was too late.

Help us demand the AP correct the record before it is too late to stop the pro-war narrative.

NIAC will protect your privacy and keep you informed about this and similar campaigns. NIAC will not sell or share your information.

The post NIAC: Demand AP Clarify Warmongering Report appeared first on Iran Media Fact Check.

PBS corrected the mistake and posted the following note on its transcript:

EDITOR’S NOTE: This transcript has been updated to account for an error in the NewsHour’s broadcast reference to Iran’s widely suspected military ambitions in pursuing nuclear energy, despite Tehran’s assertions that its atomic efforts are entirely peaceful. We should have said that “Iran’s nuclear program has been a particular flashpoint.”

The post PBS NewsHour Corrects Claim that Iran Has a “Nuclear Weapons Program” appeared first on Iran Media Fact Check.

Thank you for taking a stand against twisting the facts for war.  Together, we can hold the media accountable, and help ensure we aren’t misled into yet another war.

Here’s the correction that ran in the Journal:

Correction

The International Atomic Energy Agency inspects Iran’s uranium-enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow every two weeks. The Oct. 24 op-ed, “Countdown to the Red Line in Iran,” said the inspections occurred monthly. The biweekly frequency alters calculations in the piece about Iran’s nuclear breakout capacity and the economic “cripple date” for sanctions to work. The breakout capacity would move to July 2014 from January 2014—which would become the cripple date, moving from July 2013.

Best,

Jamal Abdi

Policy Director
National Iranian American Council

The post Wall Street Journal Corrects False Claims for War appeared first on Iran Media Fact Check.

In an October 22 discussion of the foreign policy presidential debate, the PBS NewsHour‘s Jeffrey Brown stated that “Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been a particular flash point.”

A few weeks earlier (10/5/12) on the NewsHour, Ray Suarez said that Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez had

“continued to thwart American efforts on a range of international issues, such as Washington’s attempt to convince Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to halt his country’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

As most people following this story should know, there is no intelligence that shows Iran has a nuclear weapons program. The country has long denied the accusation, and regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency have failed to turn up evidence that Iran’s enriched uranium is being diverted for use in a weapon (Extra!, 1/12).

Some governments claim otherwise, but journalists are supposed to convey the evidence that is available–not to make claims that are unsupported by the facts. If there was one clear lesson from the Iraq War, it was that reporters need to carefully distinguish between what is known for certain and what some government leaders claim.

There have been questions about the NewsHour‘s Iran reporting before (FAIR Blog, 1/10/12). On January 9 the broadcast reported that Iran’s denial that it is pursuing a nuclear weapon was “disputed by the U.S. and its allies.” The show turned to a clip from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to bolster that point — but edited out the part of his statement in which he said, “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.” A NewsHour editor agreed (FAIR Blog, 1/1712) that “it would have been better had we not lopped off the first part of the Panetta quote.”

Unfortunately, these recent examples suggest that the show is still being careless about how it reports the facts about Iran.

ACTION:
Tell the PBS NewsHour to correct its assertions that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

CONTACT:
PBS NewsHour
onlineda2@newshour.org

The post FAIR: PBS Newshour Botches Basic Fact about Iran Dispute appeared first on Iran Media Fact Check.

The authors–Reul Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz–claim that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspects Iranian enrichment facilities only once a month, and therefore Iran will soon become a “threshold nuclear state” because the IAEA won’t be able to detect a move to produce weapons grade uranium. They argue that new sanctions must be leveled to collapse Iran’s economy imminently before “a pre-emptive military strike becomes essential.”

Gerecht and Dubowitz are wrong. IAEA inspections of Iran’s enrichment facilities don’t occur just once a month, they occur about once a week.

The fact is that IAEA inspections of the enrichment facilities referenced in the article occur three to four times a month. Two of those visits are regularly scheduled–which the Wall Street Journal itself has previously reported–and an additional one to two unannounced inspections occur at these facilities each month.

In addition to reporting this previously, the Wall Street Journal has also noted that the IAEA operates cameras at Iran’s nuclear sites at all times and that U.S. officials maintain the IAEA would detect any move by Iran to reconfigure their centrifuges to begin producing weapons-grade fuel.

So why did the Wall Street Journal allow FDD to blatantly distort this fact in the paper’s own opinion pages?

FDD has been given a free pass by the Wall Street Journal to argue for sanctions that will starve ordinary people, and for a new war in the Middle East based on their own set of facts. We saw with Iraq what happens when the media turns a blind eye to the blatant distortion of reality.

So we are calling on the Wall Street Journal to correct this misstatement, and you can join that call by sending a letter through www.IranFact.org.

FDD is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The organization, headed by Mark Dubowitz, has explicitly argued in the Wall Street Journal previously that sanctions should punish Iran’s middle class. Reul Marc Gerecht has argued that bombing Iran would help the Green Movement. We can disagree about the merits of those opinions, but the facts used to support those opinions are not up for debate.

When FDD blatantly misrepresent the facts, the record should be corrected. The Wall Street Journal has a responsibility to hold its contributors accountable to this fact. Take a moment to ensure the Wall Street Journal upholds this duty and corrects the record instead of allowing for the public to be mislead into another war. Call on the Wall Street Journal to explain the facts and correct the record by sending them a letter at www.IranFact.org.

The post NIAC: Tell the Wall Street Journal to Stop Distorting Facts to Sell War appeared first on Iran Media Fact Check.