Guardian bypasses ‘nuclear trigger’ document
On Monday, The Times revealed in a five-page spread that it had obtained secret documents related to Iran’s nuclear programme. The documents described plans to test a neutron initiator, a device used to trigger explosions in nuclear weapons – a discovery which contradicts Iran’s assertion that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes only.
Following Wednesday’s missile test, media coverage of Iran once again raised the issue of the Islamic state’s intentions, with The Guardian suggesting that it, alongside The Times, has helped to raise concerns that ‘clandestine military aspects of Iran's nuclear programme may be more advanced than was previously realised.’ However, The Guardian was in fact one of the few media outlets not to cover the initial reporting of the document, and has yet to describe what it consists of.
In Monday’s ‘Secret document exposes Iran’s nuclear trigger’, Catherine Philp of The Times stated that the secret document described ‘the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no other use than in a nuclear weapon.’ She also noted that, on the basis of the document, ‘it is clear that the Iranians are intent on concealing their nuclear military work behind legitimate civilian research.’ This sentiment was echoed in the editorial, which argued that the find ‘confirms a pattern of duplicity by a bellicose regime.’
In spite of The Times’ in-depth expose, The Guardian editorial of the following day, discussing the current status of diplomatic negotiations with Iran, made no reference to the new revelations. In ‘On Collision course, again’, The Guardian argued against the use of sanctions, calling them ‘the worst option – barring military assault’.
Whilst noting that it was Iran’s rejection of an offer to have its uranium processed abroad that has led to the proposal of stronger sanctions, the editorial does not mention the issue of whether or not Iran might be pursuing a nuclear weapon, let alone take into the account the implications of what The Times had published the day before. As such, Thursday’s claim by The Guardian to be leading on this issue seems misplaced.
18 December 2009