Photos of ‘Cleanup’ at Iran’s Parchin Site Lack Credibility
News stories about satellite photographs suggesting efforts by Iran to “sanitize” a military site that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said may have been used to test nuclear weapons have added yet another layer to widely held suspicion that Iran must indeed be hiding a covert nuclear weapons program.
But the story is suspect, in part because it is based on evidence that could only be ambiguous, at best. The claim does not reflect U.S. intelligence, and a prominent think tank that has published satellite photography related to past controversies surrounding Iran’s nuclear program has not found any photographs supporting it.
The original Parchin cleanup story by Associated Press correspondent George Jahn, published March 7, reported that two unnamed diplomats from an unidentified country or countries — it was not made clear how many were involved — told him that satellite photos “appear to show trucks and earth-moving vehicles” at the site.
The two diplomats said they suspected Iran “may be trying to erase evidence” of tests of a “neutron device used to set off a nuclear explosion” because “some of the vehicles at the scene appeared to be hauling trucks and other equipment suited to carting off potentially contaminated soil from the site.”
However, a third diplomat told Jahn he “could not confirm that,” and Jahn was shown no photographs to back up the description offered by his two anonymous sources. Three other diplomats with whom Jahn spoke were apparently unaware of such photographs.
The satellite photographs described to Jahn did not come from U.S. intelligence. Former CIA counterterrorism official Phil Giraldi told IPS that a U.S. intelligence official had confirmed to him that the officials in question were not talking about intelligence provided by U.S. intelligence.
U.S. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland refused to answer specific questions at a March 8 briefing about whether U.S. intelligence had such satellite photos or whether the U.S. believes that such intelligence exists. She referred to such intelligence only in the conditional tense.
“Any evidence that Iran is seeking to cover its tracks would raise only further concern about the true nature of the program,” she said.
That means that the officials were either from Israel or one of its three European allies — the British, French, and Germans — who have been working closely with Israel to undermine and finally force a revision of the U.S. intelligence community’s 2007 conclusion that Iran has not worked on developing a nuclear weapon since 2003.
Israel provided a series of documents to the IAEA after that intelligence estimate — as recounted by former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei in his 2011 memoir — aimed at proving that Iran had secretly tested a detonator for an implosion device and had worked on a neutron initiator as recently as 2007. The timing of the story — just after the possibility of an IAEA inspection visit to the site had been suggested by Iran — is also suspect. The allegation of a cleanup at the site would provide a convenient explanation for the failure of the IAEA to find evidence to support the suggestion in its November 2011 report that Iran constructed a large containment vessel for hydrodynamic tests of nuclear weapons at Parchin.
Reflecting the degree to which the alleged intelligence has been given credence by being amplified without any questioning by the rest of the news media, an AFP report Saturday suggested that, even if Iran now agrees to an IAEA visit to the Parchin site, “it will find itself accused of having cleaned up the site beforehand.”
Further casting doubt on the motive behind the story, the same allegation was made to the same AP reporter more than three and a half months earlier. On Nov. 22, Jahn reported that a single official of an unidentified state had “cited intelligence from his home country, saying it appears that Tehran is trying cover its tracks by sanitizing the site and removing any evidence of nuclear research and development.”
That assertion came in the wake of the IAEA Board of Governors meeting in November, as the IAEA Safeguards Department was planning to request a visit to the site at Parchin, where the agency had just reported nuclear weapons-related testing had been carried out in a large explosive containment chamber, according to unnamed “member states.”
The claim of satellite intelligence showing Iranian efforts to clean up a site at Parchin has not been supported by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), the Washington, D.C. think tank that had defended allegations in last November’s IAEA report about foreign expertise having assisted in the alleged construction of a containment vessel at Parchin in 2000.
Paul Brannan, a specialist on interpretation of satellite photography for ISIS, told The New York Times that he had looked at many photos of Parchin but so far had not found any photographs of the “specific site” — meaning the site at which the unnamed officials had claimed there were equipment and vehicles indicating possible removal of evidence of past tests.
But Brannan went even further to say he could not find any photographs of sites at Parchin that suggested cleanup. He told the Times the presence of various kinds of equipment in the vicinity is not an indication of removal of evidence by Iran.
“There is no way to know whether or not the activity you see in a particular satellite image is cleansing or just regular work.” Brannan added, “There’s a lot of activity there — always.”
The new alarm over alleged satellite images recalls the accusation by the George W. Bush administration in close consultation with Israel in 2004 that Iran was using high explosives to test nuclear weapons at Parchin.
ISIS Executive Director David Albright told interviewer Scott Horton of Antiwar Radio in July 2009 that he had “gotten a tip” in September 2004 that high explosives testing at Parchin “could be used for nuclear weapons.”
ISIS then published a series of satellite photographs that the organization said were “consistent” with facilities for such nuclear testing.
The satellite images were then cited by Undersecretary of State John Bolton as alarming evidence of covert Iranian nuclear weapons work. The United States and its Western allies put strong pressure on the IAEA to get Iran to agree to a visit to Parchin.
But Bolton and the IAEA had only vague suspicions rather than hard intelligence to go on. The IAEA asked to visit four entirely different areas of the 24-square-mile Parchin facility for places that Israeli intelligence believed were consistent with some kind of nuclear-related testing activity.
The Iranians insisted that the IAEA inspectors could only visit one area per visit, even though they were allowed to visit five different buildings of their own choosing each time. The result was embarrassing visits in January 2005 and again in November that found nothing to justify the suspicions.
Another IAEA mission to Parchin that concedes that the information it had been given by those unnamed member states was false would deal a serious blow to the efforts of Israel and its European allies to refute the 2007 U.S. intelligence estimate.
(Inter Press Service)
Read more by Gareth Porter
- SOF Troops Still in Wardak as Joint US-Afghan Probe Continues – March 11th, 2013
- Former Insiders Criticize Iran Policy as US Hegemony – February 25th, 2013
- Bulgarian Revelations Explode Hezbollah Bombing ‘Hypothesis’ – February 17th, 2013
- Iranian Bomb Graph Appears Adapted from One on Internet – December 13th, 2012
- News Media Misled by IAEA Data on Sensitive Iranian Stockpile – November 20th, 2012





curmudgeonvt
March 12th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Imagine that, an AP reporter passing on "exclusive" information provided to him by unnamed diplomats and this AP reporter then writing a column thick with innuendo and these unsubstantiated "facts" and these "facts" then being used as "proof" by warhawks to justify going to war for the sake of Israel. Sound familiar? Any bets on whether these "unsubstantiated facts" came from highly placed "officials" within the Netanyahoo government? An official, perhaps, who would really like to see the US go to war with Iran…perhaps?
Come on, George Jahn and the AP has been a shill for the Israelis and the US warhawks and neocons for years.
Mojo
March 12th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
"The two diplomats said they suspected Iran “may be trying to erase evidence” of tests of a “neutron device used to set off a nuclear explosion” because “some of the vehicles at the scene appeared to be hauling trucks and other equipment suited to carting off potentially contaminated soil from the site.”
Before Iraq invasion almost every other jeep or any other truck of sort that was moving from one part to another was considered a military movement and its was bombed by either English, French or US and the bombing was ordered by either countries government. Later they were saying that Iraq WMD were moved to Syria or Iran and that they had evidence as mobile weather station and etc. ironically almost all of the infos were coming from a Diplomat/s source but the entire matter was a hush hush but constant and systematic . This time is about Iran, the sad part of it is that some reporter don't have anything to do but to receive a hush hush phone call and some phony photos from a hush hush source who are supposedly a hush hush diplomat hanging around in DC or Tel Aviv or for that matter Paris or Geneva wanting to inform people about the danger that Iranians have already developed a nuclear weapon and they are ready to strike US, EU, India, China, Russia, and South Africa but before that they are going to hit South America especially Venezuela, because they are helping poor New York American with free Oil. How dare they do that while they can make money out of that Oil.
Orville H. Larson
March 12th, 2012 at 11:22 pm
One shouldn't put any credence in these latest allegations against Iran. It's probably Mossad disinformation, and nothing more. . . .
Louise Danceanu
March 12th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
But imagine un other story… Imagine that Iran allready have nuclear weapons. Imagine that Russia or China gave him 1 hundred nuclear missiles. So, Iran do not need to enrich uranium, becouse he allready has this blame missiles and we all are living on a planet whith this nuclearised Iran. And nothing happend! Nothing happend toward Israel or SUA or hwo nows what other country… Dramatic position for Israel! What other pretext can be find to attac Iran and impose the israelien power allover Middle East?!
notinmyname
March 13th, 2012 at 1:26 am
Another example of the extent of penetration of zionist agents into the media. Israel is determined to start a war on Iran one way or the other.
Popsiq
March 13th, 2012 at 1:50 am
Thanks for checking this out, but who else besides you, me and a few Iranians gives a rat.s azz?
The rest of the sheeple stopped at the headline. All they 'know' is that satellite photographs showed a clean-up.
Some of those sheeple command military forces.
John_Muhammad
March 13th, 2012 at 3:05 am
An unnamed source from an unnamed grocery store told me that he had photographs of some delivery trucks that might have been used to haul some kind of goods to or from one of the rival grocery stores in the neighborhood, prompting him to conclude that they might be planning to have a devastating sale in a few years.
brainfan
March 13th, 2012 at 5:19 am
Remember the satellite photographs showing 250,000 Iraqi troops amassed on the Saudi border before the Persian Gulf War? Yeah, me neither.
deliaruhe
March 13th, 2012 at 6:27 am
The deja vu is dizzying.
None of this excellent analysis is gonna mean a damn thing, one way or the other. Because if Bibi doesn't launch a war before October, Obama will seriously consider launching one — especially if he's not doing well enough in the polls.
dave742
March 13th, 2012 at 9:10 am
// “some of the vehicles at the scene appeared to be hauling trucks and other equipment suited to carting off potentially contaminated soil from the site.”//
Regarding previous BS stories about soil removal (at the Lavizan site), see p. 219-228 here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39038338/Pierre-Goldsch…
hass
March 13th, 2012 at 9:39 am
They said the same thing about Lavisan: The IAEA found nothing. http://gulfnews.com/news/region/iran/no-sign-of-n…
Dr Gonzo
March 13th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Holy cr@p ! You mean to tell me US intelligeance has discovered hauling trucks entering and leaving a military base? Well damn looks like Iran has been caught red handed building a nuke… or moving office supplies, whicheverr you prefer.
It is I only
March 13th, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Why Iran should bother to test their "nukes" in Parchin, when they are testing them in North Korea as according to the "free democratic respected western media"!
MvGuy
March 13th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
*************************************************************************************************************** ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ DANGER … NEOCON SHILL ALERT ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
***********************************************VICTORIA NULAND ……………………………………………….
AKA MRS. ROBERT KAGAN
************* Nuland is married to historian Robert Kagan, with whom she has two children*********
The strange appointment of Victoria Nuland as State Department Spokesperson
By Patricia H. Kushlis
Is Hillary asleep at the switch? What is going on here?
Earlier this week, Josh Rogin at FP and Eric Martin at Progressive Realist both flagged the curious appointment of Victoria Nuland as the next State Department Spokesperson to fill P.J. Crowley’s shoes.
Martin questions whether this has foreign policy implications, in particular the replacement of an anti-torture appointee with someone who served as Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney.
Rogin doesn’t directly raise potential administration policy shifts but does point out that once upon a time Nuland was Strobe Talbott’s Chief of Staff when he was Deputy Secretary of State during the Clinton Administration and that Talbott had thought very highly of her at the time and still does. In fact, he, according to Rogin, praised her to the hilt in an interview about the pending appointment. So the seemingly amoral Nuland, we’re led to believe, can and will do anyone’s bidding and do it well – in short, a consummate career diplomat.
Why?
But why would Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration agree to appoint to this politically sensitive position someone who willingly served such a controversial figure in suppporting and implementing the “war on terror” and all the baggage that comes with it? Furthermore, how reliable is a Talbott reference anyway? After all, I understand that he just helped his friend Robert Kagan, Nuland’s neocon husband, get a job at Brookings and Talbott is also a friend of neocon writer Marc Gerecht, the husband of Diane Zeleny who also just latched onto a likely sweetheart deal sort of appointment as Head of External Relations and Congressional Affairs at the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). Whether Zeleny deserves or is qualified for the position or not.
From what I know about the Department, an FSO doesn’t just get detailed to the staff of a highly charged and ideological Vice President unless that detailee agrees to follow the boss’s dictates. Cheney’s were all too often forceful and odious. Furthermore, does anyone really think that Cheney –with his penchant for super loyalty and secrecy – would have ever accepted Nuland (or anyone else) for the position without some kind of loyalty test?
Surely the State Department under Hillary Clinton could have found equally (or likely even better) qualified career candidates who do not carry Nuland’s political baggage.
Behind the scenes trade off?
Or was this some kind of behind the scenes deal – a trade off for who knows what – that those of us innocents outside the inner circles are not privy?
Regardless, there are several particularly unique – or just plain peculiar – unsettling things about this appointment depending upon the way one looks at it:
* First, Nuland comes from what has turned out to be an under-the-radar-non-job as a Special Envoy to the moribund multilateral Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Talks. This position is nowhere equivalent in stature to that of Ambassador to NATO a prestigious and high profile position she held under W and Rice after leaving Cheney’s office.
Since she’s been Special Envoy, the CFE Talks seem to have gone exactly nowhere. They were supposed to have ended some time ago and morphed into new talks about European troop levels and numbers of non-nuclear weapons. But it doesn’t look as if that has happened either.
Such a Special Envoy position does not appear to have required Senate confirmation. Certainly I could find no evidence it did. Basically it even sounds like a demotion of sorts – not another rung up on the hierarchical ladder to State’s stratosphere.
Mark
March 13th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
I can't wait to see the "Spy Satellite Photos"; when and how will they be trotted out. Based on the photos Colin Powell showed of Iraq, the U.S. "intelligence" community didn't seem to make any improvements in their photographic skills in 4 decades
Iraq: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/08/op…
Cuba: http://workgroups.cwrl.utexas.edu/visual/files/cu…
Maybe at least this time they can update the font used in the description bubble, Comic Sans would be appropriate…
Aarky
March 13th, 2012 at 7:35 pm
You have to realize that AP has been infiltrated by the Zionists and will do the bidding of the Israelis.
curmudgeonvt
March 13th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Actually, if you read the article above it clearly states: "…photographs described to Jahn did not come from U.S. intelligence…"
The point being the photos and suppositions and conjectures and lies are all being provided to the AP by unnamed people – you can probably deduce on your own the provenance of the material… the usual suspects…
I Want My NPT: A review of the weekend's dose of Iran nuclear program propaganda
May 14th, 2012 at 6:45 am
[...] arms-related tests that U.N. inspectors suspect Tehran has conducted" at its Parchin military complex. The news agency says it was bequeathed this rendering "by an official of a country tracking [...]
Extravaganza of Crapoganda on Iran’s Nuclear Program
May 14th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
[...] nuclear arms-related tests that U.N. inspectors suspect Tehran has conducted” at its Parchin military complex. The news agency says it was bequeathed this rendering “by an official of a country tracking [...]
THIS WEEKEND’S EXTRAVAGANZA OF CRAPOGANDA « Desertpeace
May 15th, 2012 at 2:50 am
[...] nuclear arms-related tests that U.N. inspectors suspect Tehran has conducted” at its Parchin military complex. The news agency says it was bequeathed this rendering “by an official of a country [...]
Extravaganza of Crapoganda « akkaoldfart
May 15th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
[...] for nuclear arms-related tests that U.N. inspectors suspect Tehran has conducted” at its Parchin military complex. The news agency says it was bequeathed this rendering “by an official of a country tracking [...]
IAEA Chief to Visit Tehran For Nuclear Talks -- News from Antiwar.com
May 18th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
[...] Previous disagreements between the IAEA and Iran have centered on the IAEA’s insistence, and Iran’s reluctance, to allow inspection of the Parchin military base, which is not a nuclear enrichment site but has been subjected to propaganda efforts to suggest some past or current nuclear weapons development took place there. But all that has been made public is sketchy evidence which lacks credibility. [...]
Reports Citing Intelligence on Iran Weapons Program Lack Credibility -- News from Antiwar.com
August 7th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
[...] Inter-Press Service’s Gareth Porter reported in March, the photographs lack credibility, were unconvincing to at least four of six diplomatic [...]
Iran ‘Weapons Program’ Reports Lack Credibility « Stop Making Sense
August 8th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
[...] Inter-Press Service’s Gareth Porter reported in March, the photographs lack credibility, were unconvincing to at least four of six diplomatic [...]
Muftah » The U.S. Invasion of Iraq: Strategic Consequences for Iran
March 19th, 2013 at 5:59 am
[...] signing the Paris Agreement on November 14, 2004 and carrying out all of its obligations (including allowing two visits by the IAEA to the Parchin military site in southeast Tehran in January and November of 2005, which [...]