Is North Korea rally helping Iran prepare for its own nuclear explosive device test? The answer is yes, if you believe this story in the right wing conservative UK daily, the Telegraph:
North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.
Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran’s nuclear scientists.
Sounds very, very scary, doesn’t it? Gives the ordinary reader the impression that:
(1) Iran has enough nuclear fissile material to construct a bomb now (something no other source, be it an intelligence agency like the CIA or a reputable media outlet like the New York Times has been willing to confirm; and
(2) North Korea is going to give Iranian nuclear scientists the last remaining piece of the puzzle to make and test their own nuclear device.
Of course, to make such a frightening claim, surely the reporter (and Telegraph editor), Mr. Con Coughlin has verified his story with numerous sources, some of which are named, right? Well, let’s take a look at the basis for this Coughlin’s story, shall we?
Coughlin’s Sources
In the following excerpts, the italicized text is from the original Coughlin article in the Telegraph, and any text within brackets (i.e., [like this]) paraphrases the substance of what he wrote. You are free to read the entire article yourself to verrify that my paraphrases accurately summarize what he writes.
Here is the first instance of any source to whom Coughlin refers to support the claims contained in the first two paragraphs of his report:
“Western intelligence officials are convinced that Iran is working on its own weapons programme.”
My comment: I presume that these unnamed and unspecified officials are cited here to support the implicit claim that Iran has enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear explosive device, one which North Korea is supposedly assisting them in creating. Who these officials might be is anyone’s guess, but I’ll pick American and/or British officials for reasons that will be made clear shortly.
“A senior European defence official …” [who told the Telegraph that Iranians were present for the North Korean test in October, 2006 (one which by all accounts was a miserable failure)].
My comment: A senior European defence official” is a little less vague. I presume it means we can assume it isn’t an American official, unless Coughlin would refer to an American working at NATO as “a European defence official.”
This source adds nothing to the essential claim in the story’s lede, however, which is that North Korea is helping Iran build and test a nuclear explosive device. Re-cycling an old story broken by NewsMax from last year doesn’t really support the claim that North Korea is actively assisting Iran in building a bomb at the present time.
“There were unconfirmed reports…” [that Iranians were present at the October North Korean nuclear test.]
My comment: Unconfirmed reports? Need I say more?
[S]enior western military officials [express deep concerns that] the North Korean’s technical superiority [will accelerate the Iranian nuclear program.]
My comment: Yes, that vaunted North Korean “technical superiority.” Did I already mention how horribly wrong the last (and only) nuclear test for the North Koreans went? Oh, I did, already? Excuse me for repeating myself.
“The Iranians are working closely with the North Koreans to study the results of last year’s North Korean nuclear bomb test,” said the European defence official.
“We have identified increased activity at all of Iran’s nuclear facilities since the turn of the year,” he said.
“All the indications are that the Iranians are working hard to prepare for their own underground nuclear test.”
My comment: Whoever this unnamed European defense official is, he or she sure seems extremely clued in to what the Iranians and North Koreans are doing together to help Iran’s nuclear program accelerate to warp speed.
Of course, there’s nothing in Coughlin’s piece to give us a clue as to this official’s identity or position, his or her area of expertise, what sources of intelligence are available to this official, etc. Instead this unidentified specter speaks in vague but scary generalities about alleged “increased activity” and “indications” of an Iranian nuclear test. Not to mention his or her conclusory statements about North Korea’s close cooperation with Iran in preparation for such a test. Of facts to support those statements, there are none.
Intelligence estimates vary about how long [before Iran has a nuclear device it can test]
My comment: Which estimates? None are specifically mentioned in Coughlin’s article, of course. Instead, we are told this:
[D]efence officials monitoring the growing co-operation between North Korea and Iran believe the Iranians could be in a position to test fire a low-grade device — less than half a kiloton — within 12 months.
My comment: Funny that the CIA estimate that Iran, at best, is ten years away from having the ability to make a nuclear device is not even mentioned here. Nor does Coughlin tell is of the 150 IAEA inspectors currently in Iran monitoring Iranian nuclear facilities. Or the fact that the IAEA has stated that Iran has no nuclear weapons, or even any weapons grade nuclear material from which to assemble a nuclear weapon. Or the fact that the CIA recently reported that it has been unable to find any evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Are you getting the suspicion that the sourcing for Mr. Coughlin’s article might be a tad bit thin, and that he has done little, if any research to confirm or rebut what his anonymous sources are telling him about the Iran’s ability to make a nuke, with or without the alleged help of North Korea? He certainly doesn’t cite one piece of evidence, nor any contrary sources, which might call into question the picture he is painting of a dangerous nuclear liaison between Iran and North Korea. In effect, this story was dictated to him. He’s nothing more than a stenographer. The only question is for whom?
Coughlin’s Track Record
Now, that I’ve established the paucity of hard evidence for Mr. Coughlin’s article, let’s consider his current work situation and past history as a reporter. He is currently employed as the Executive Foreign Editor of The Daily Telegraph, part of Conrad Black’s media empire.
Here are a few links to Mr. Black’s personal history and political leanings, which you are free to peruse at your leisure. I won’t bother to excerpt them here, but suffice it to say that’s he’s very conservative and the subject of an indictment by Patrick Fitzgerald (yes, that Patrick Fitzgerald) for criminal fraud, racketeering and obstruction of justice in connection with his alleged looting of millions of dollars from Hollinger International, a publishing company he once owned. By all accounts, a shady character to say the least, and one given to supporting far right political positions in his newspapers.
As for Mr. Coughlin, he has written extensively about Iran before, in the Telegraph and elsewhere. Indeed, independent media critics in the United Kingdom have called into question the validity of all of his reporting regarding Iran, essentially claiming he has been nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for right wing and neoconservatives whose seek regime change in Iran through the use of military force by the United States and/or Israel. Here is an excerpt from the case they make against the reliability of Coughlin’s Iran reporting at their website:
The Press Complaints Commission have launched an investigation following the submission of a report today detailing a catalogue of inaccurate and misleading stories about Iran by Daily Telegraph political editor, Con Coughlin. […]
The veracity of Coughlin’s writing on Iran is already under investigation by the PCC following complaints about a headline article in last month’s Telegraph that claimed that Iran was “grooming Bin Laden’s successor”. The story, universally dismissed by Middle East experts, led the organisation Campaign Iran to conduct a broader analysis of the accuracy of Mr Coughlin’s stories and the journalistic methods he uses.
Analysing 44 articles by Mr Coughlin on Iran, the report finds some stark patterns in terms of his journalistic technique:
• Sources are unnamed or untraceable, often “senior Western intelligence officials” or “senior Foreign Office officials”.
• Articles are published at sensitive and delicate times where there has been a relatively positive diplomatic moves towards Iran.
• Articles contain exclusive revelations about Iran combined with eye-catchingly controversial headlines;
• The story upon which the headline is based does not usually exceed one line or at the most one paragraph. The rest of the article focuses on other, often unrelated, information.The report also reveals that Coughlin has a history of breaking politically important stories that are later shown to be inaccurate. He is the journalist who, discovered “the fact” that Saddam Hussein could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes. He was also the journalist who, in 2003, unearthed “the link” between the 9/11 hijacker, Mohammed Ata, and the Iraqi intelligence.
Quite the little disinformation dispenser, isn’t he? Amazing how many important stories Con Coughlin which broke supported rationales advanced by the Bush administration to justify its policies toward Iraq, and now Iran. Even more amazing is how often his original reporting has been proven later to be dead wrong. I think he even beats the previous media disinformation champion, Judith Miller, by a wide margin.
So, you may believe what you wish. I’m sure the war bloggers and other assorted wingnuts are pushing this story hard as proof that Iran needs to be attacked soon (if not immediately) in order to forestall them getting the BOMB and wiping Israel off the face of the earth within the next 12 months. Or delivering suitcase nukes to Al Qaeda and Hezbollah to attack American cities like yours, perhaps. Or whatever their worst panic attack fears can conjure up. But if I were a discriminating consumer of information (and I am), this would be one report I’d place in the old circular file, if you get my meaning.
