Blogger’s Nanodiamonds Analysis Starts to Kill The IAEA’s Case
Before the recent IAEA report was published I looked into the available information about the Ukrainian scientist Vyacheslav Danilenko mentioned in a Washington Post piece as a “former Soviet weapons scientist” who supposedly was helping the Iranians with there nuclear program.
I found that the Dr. Danilenko’s main scientific record and capacity was in the field of producing Nanodiamonds through explosions and his collaboration with Iran’s acclaimed nanotechnology industry and research was with regards to Iran’s nanotechnology program not with regards to nukes.
A close reading of the IAEA report after it was released confirmed my analysis.
Gareth Porter of Inter Press Service added some bits to my analysis in a piece published yesterday.
Now even more confirmation is coming in. Via The Hindu:
The Soviet scientist was not named in the IAEA report but the Kommersant daily easily identified him as Vyacheslav Danilenko, a pioneer in developing the technology of producing nanodiamonds by explosion. Nanodiamonds are used in the manufacture of lubricants and rubber. Contacted by the newspaper, the 76-year-old scientist, now retired, refused to discuss his work in Iran, saying only: “I’m not a nuclear physicist and I’m not a father of Iran’s nuclear programme.”
His former colleague confirmed Mr. Danilenko’s words. Vladimir Padalko, head of a company producing nanodiamonds, said experts from the IAEA and the U.S. State Department had interviewed him several times about Mr. Danilenko’s work in Iran.
“I explained to them that nanodiamonds have nothing to do with nuclear weapons,” Mr. Padalko told Kommersant.
Reuters also covers the Kommersant piece.
More people are taking a deeper look into this now. It seems likely that the whole case will blow up into the IAEA’s face and in the face of David Albright who, according to Porter, was the one who slipped the scientist’s name to the Washington Post and other media.
After knowing the name it was simply diligent use of search engines and some intelligent combining of the available information to find what Danilenko’s work was really about.
A lot of the IAEA “evidence” that has been interpreted as “nuclear” stuff, the explosion chamber in Parchin, the hemispheric shell with an array of high explosives, the exploding bridge-wire detonators and other details, are all very well explainable with Iran’s work on nanodiamond production. There is nothing exclusively “nuclear” to it. Without that exclusivity the case the IAEA tried to make doesn’t exist anymore.
Why the IAEA and the main stream media have not better researched Danilenko’s work, or done this and then disregarded the obvious conclusions, is beyond me. It is likely only explainable by heavy U.S. pressure on IAEA head Yukiya Amano and a generally pliable media.
Actually … it appears to me that exposing this “secret annex” was the worst thing the US could have done. It showed its cards, metaphorically speaking, and turned out to have been bluffing. The “evidence”, long touted as containing damning proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons ambition, is now characterized even in the mainstream media as “thin” (Christian Science Monitor) and “phoney” (Guardian)
I agree with that analysis. The Obama administration managed to shot another decisive own goal.
Hello? Vienna? IAEA? How about a decent job offer for this writer. If only to help you to avoid more such face palm moments.
No comments yet.