Please note that this website uses cookies necessary for the functioning of our website, cookies that optimize the performance, to provide social media features and to analyse website traffic.

A Selection of Poetry

Gross Bias in Presentation of Alleged Uranium Enrichment in Iran

Details
The following Email exchange with Gavin Allen, regarding the BBC's presentation of alleged uranium enrichment in Iran, took place between November 2004 and February 2005:

From: David Halpin
Sent: 23 November 2004
To: Today Complaints

*Re. Humphrys - Uranium enrichment in Iran -Today -8.10am 21-11-04*

I protest most strongly at this propaganda for further US led pre-emptive war. The possibility that Iran is producing a nuclear weapon and adapting an existing missile was highlighted with little or no informatiuon to oppose it.

Most particularly no mention was made of the Israeli nuclear armoury (which is neatly excluded from Al Baradei's inspections because Israel is not a signatory to the NPT). Neither was Pakistan's armoury noted.

This country is not a signatory either but of course its military dictatorship is nicely under the heel of the US. Below is the official US inventory of the Israel nuclear armoury.

I look forward to your inclusion of the essence of this in any future discussion of Iran's offensive nuclear capability, especially since the clamour for war from the 'neo-conservatives' is likely to grow louder. 'Public service broadcaster' be damned. This rubbish has come from the Pentagon via Downing Street or the FCO.

Exhibit 1: Estimates of the Israeli Nuclear Arsenal
(Source: USAF Counterproliferation Center, Air War College citations)

Year Estimates from Various Sources
1967 13 bombs
1969 5-6 bombs of 19 Kilotons yield
1973 13 bombs. 20 nuclear missiles and development of a "suitcase bomb"
1974 3 nuclear capable artillery battalions each with 12 175mm tubes and total of 108 warheads. 10 bombs
1976 10-20 nuclear weapons
1980 200 bombs
1984 12-31 atomic bombs.
31 plutonium bombs and 10 uranium bombs.
1985 At least 100 nuclear bombs
1986 100-200 fission bombs and a number of fusion bombs
1991 50-60 to 200-300
1992 Greater than 200 bombs
1994 64-112 bombs @ 5 kg/warhead
70-80 weapons. "A complete repertoire" (neutron bombs, nuclear mines, suitcase bombs, submarine borne)
1996 60-80 Plutonium weapons, maybe >100 assembles, ER variants, variable
yields. Possibly 200-300. 50-90 plutonium weapons, could have well over
135. 50-100 Jericho I and 30-50 Jericho II missiles.
1997 Greater than 400 deliverable thermonuclear and nuclear weapons

Yours sincerely David Halpin FRCS


Dear Mr Halpin

Thank you for your e-mail regarding our interview with the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed el Baradei.

I note with particular interest your confident assertion that our report was "rubbish", that had "come from the Pentagon via Downing Street or the FCO". In light of our rigorous and persistent analysis of the war in Iraq - not to mention the Hutton Inquiry, various resignations and the entire WMD saga - the idea that we're in the pocket of US/UK Government is a curious one, to put it mildly.

The status of Israel and Pakistan's nuclear capabilities are indeed of interest, but I'm sure you'd accept that it is not possible to include the entire range of the nuclear debate into a ten minute interview.

I would also urge you to listen again to the interview via our website at www.bbc.co.uk/today. The introduction by John Humphrys begins as follows:

"What IS Iran up to? Has it really been developing nuclear weapons and if so, has it stopped now, as it says? Washington has been deeply suspicious of its intentions. Why else, it says, would the Iranians want enriched uranium. Others say Washington is looking for a reason to attack Iran (one of the countries on George Bush's "axis of evil") and is deliberately exaggerating the threat because it wants a new regime there."

Is that really an unfair assessment? And does "deliberately exaggerating the threat" really amount to BBC propaganda for another pre-emptive strike? I do not think so.

Thank you again for your correspondence

Yours sincerely

Gavin Allen
Deputy Editor, Today


Dear Mr Gavin Allen,

Thank you for your reply. This is delayed because my computer has been 'hacked'.

I did 'listen again' and I agree that Mr Humphrys introduction was balanced. The omissions in the body of the interview made sure that the thrust was the opposite. One sentence would have covered the fact that Israel and Pakistan were not parties to the Non Proliferation Treaty. Another should have said all nations have been obliged to give up their nuclear weapons since the resolution in the UN in 1998. I would not expect you to list Israel's nuclear armoury but it is wholly partisan not to allude to it. As you know, it is not acknowledged to exist by Israel, the UK and US, as well as other friends. However, the facts of it were exposed very well by Ms Frankel's film on BBC2, but late at night. You will be interested to know that Mordechai Vanunu said the following when asked what happened when Al-Baradei visited Israel:- 'Sharon took him to a border and played a mind game. He never got to see Damona etc'.

The story was stimulated by a 'walk-in'. The source that was considered to be unreliable later on, and for which there was no independent corroboration, had said that Iran was advanced in the preparation of a nuclear weapon and was making ready a missile to carry it. Anyway, it was all very reminiscent of the 'crock of s...' which Chalabi unplugged for the 'shock and awe' that was to come. You will recall Powell twirling the vial at the UN and all the other palpable rubbish which was used to justify the start of the most terrible crimes in Iraq. I stand by my assertion that the unsubstantiated story was pumped out by the Pentagon, given more speed in Downing Street and then presented by yourselves without any proper context. We are used to that in many spheres and especially in regard to the brutal occupation of the remnants of Palestine.

I will make some comments within the text of your letter. I cannot accept you believe what you are saying.

Today Complaints wrote:


>>Dear Mr Halpin
>>
>>Thank you for your e-mail regarding our interview with the
>>director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed el
>>Baradei.
>>
>>I note with particular interest your confident assertion that our report was >>"rubbish", that had "come from the Pentagon via Downing Street or the FCO". In >>light of our rigorous and persistent analysis of the war in Iraq - not to mention the >>Hutton Inquiry, various resignations and the entire WMD saga - the idea that we're >>in the pocket of US/UK Government is a curious one, to put it mildly.

Leading up to the war, which BBC propaganda helped justify, the BBC gave about 3% of broadcasting time to those who held 'anti-war' views. The parade of neo-conservative 'hawks' (to use a euphemism) was endless and they largely went unchallenged. You will remember - Perle, Bolton,Wolfowitz,Edelman, Cristol etc etc. It was all very obscene. When you refer to your 'rigourous and persistent analysis of the war in Iraq' do you include the 'embedded' reports from Paul Wood in the early days of the ground based bombardment of Fallujah or the silence that lasted for weeks as to the reality of this murderous assault? I exclude from my comments the work of the lady reporter in Baghdad who bravely does her best in spite of being subject to 'restriction'.

Like the BBC, the IAEA is also an independent body. It works with the UN to promote peaceful technology and I fail to see how its reports - or our neutral coverage of those reports - could be interpreted as "propaganda for further US led pre-emptive war".

The IAEA might pretend to be an independent body but we can be sure of that only when it starts inspecting *all *nuclear arms stocks. It might even start commenting on the use of 'depleted' uranium sheathed munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. You know very well that the US calls the shots. Any really independent IAEA would be stopping the further deployment of anti-missile 'defence' by the US.


From: Today Complaints
Sent: 03 February 2005
To: David Halpin

Dear Mr Halpin,

Thank you for your latest e-mail regarding our interview with Mohamed el Baradei.

I'm sorry you feel the BBC is "a force for the worst" and that our output is largely banal. As with your first e-mail, I cannot agree with your conclusions and do not believe that any independent research would support your assertion that "BBC propaganda helped justify (the war)".

I do not have anything further to add, but note your remarks. With respect, I doubt whether a face-to-face discussion would be a fruitful use of either of our time.

Yours sincerely

Gavin Allen
Deputy Editor, Today