The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] IISS Report Distortions

Dear List,

No one should be surprised by the IISS report. This so called "think tank" is
nothing more than an arm of MI5 and is there to serve British interests not
provide objective analyses or reporting.

The report is full of contradictions and fabrications.
First of all, it begins by stating the following: "We began to work on the
preparation on this Dossier, in the month of June. By then it had become evident
that the increased attention to the threat posed by Iraq’s programmes to develop
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well as ballistic missiles, was
crying out for a net assessment of this kind."

This is part of the US/UK/Zionist propaganda against Iraq. The timing of the
report is suspicious, as the claim that there is an Iraqi programme to develop
WMDs is false and baseless.

The report continues to spread lies like the following:" Iraq made every
effort to obscure its past, obstruct dismantlement of its present assets, and
retain capabilities for the future. Since Iraq forced inspections to end in
December 1998, it has become more difficult to learn about its activities and
assess its capabilities."

The report claims to build its assessment on "strong foundation of technical
expertise…. On recognised technical experts, with long field experience in UNSCOM
and IAEA inspections.." We don't know who those experts are, but we know that for
example Scott Ritter, UNSCOM's chief inspector, was not among them. We also know
that the IAEA still insists that Iraq has no nuclear program nor facilities

IISS continues with such statements:" If UNMOVIC inspectors were ever to go
to Iraq, it would take them time to develop and refine the unique inspection
techniques required. In addition, it would take them considerable field experience
to develop the necessary tradecraft to deal with Iraqi obfuscation efforts.

Certainly, the strength of Baghdad’s commitment to possess WMD is measurable
in part by its efforts to resist unfettered UN inspections."

The above reflects US/UK views that inspections would continue indefinitely,
exactly what Iraq is afraid of. The IISS tells us that UNMOVIC needs "time", which
contradicts with UNMOVIC's chairman's assertions that he can make his assessment
within six months…

Iraq has not resisted UN inspections, like the report claims. Iraq still
agrees to inspections, but requires that a time limit and objectives be set for
those inspections. It also wants guarantees that UNMOVIC will not be used like
UNSCOM to spy on Iraq. And it wants guarantees that when inspection commences,
sanctions would be lifted… The US and UK refuse to give such guarantees, because
they don't want sanctions to be lifted.

The report goes on to distort facts by bringing new justifications for the
Gulf war. It states: "Had the Gulf War not intervened, Iraq could have accumulated
a nuclear stockpile of a dozen or so weapons by the end of the decade."
In other words, the Gulf War had nothing to do with Kuwait, the world community
(funny word), the UN Charter or SC resolutions. It had to do with preventing Iraq
from acquiring a nuclear weapon. And knowing that Iraq could not and would not
have used such weapons against the UK or the US, then only Israel would have
remained the objective. And that Holy Cow had to be protected at any price… Thank
you IISS... Iraq has been right all this time... The war was to protect Israel,
not liberate Kuwait like the naive thought..

The rest of the report is mere speculation, with words like "could have" and
"could develop" or "is able to". Well if that is the case, then so could Denmark
or Swaziland or Saudi Arabia. Should they also be attacked? How about countries
that ALREADY have these weapons??

For a report that is supposed to be based on scientific research and technical
know how, and drafted by a Senior Fellow for Non-Proliferation, and a Consulting
Senior Fellow for Defence Policy and Technology, it is disappointing and biased.

Perhaps we should also use some time to write to the IISS and to the media and
expose this bias and the baseless conclusions that are based on mere speculation
and malice.


Need help building a winning CV? An impressive cover letter? It's all right here for FREE! Go to 
Maktoob Jobs.

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]