A Beginning?
 

Does this constitute pure propoganda, or does it mark the beginning of what will become an end to Iranian Nuclear ambitions? My personal take is an effort to avoid actual Military action on the part of the Isreali Security Machine, and that much is likely taking place out of the public eye.



Monday, February 05, 2007



Israeli Mossad ‘assassinates’ Iran’s N-scientist

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: A prize-winning Iranian nuclear scientist has probably been assassinated by Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, reports the Sunday Times, citing an intelligence source.

Radio Farda, which is funded by the US State Department and broadcasts to Iran, reported that nuclear physicist Ardeshire Hassanpour, 44, had died in mysterious circumstances.

Hassanpour worked at a plant in Isfahan where uranium hexafluoride gas is produced. The gas is needed to enrich uranium in another plant at Natanz which has become the focus of concerns that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons.

According to Radio Farda, Iranian reports of Hassanpour’s death emerged on January 21 after a delay of six days, giving the cause as “gas poisoning”. The Iranian reports did not say how or where Hassanpour was poisoned but his death was said to have been announced at a conference on nuclear safety.

Rheva Bhalla of Stratfor, the US intelligence company, claimed on Friday that Hassanpour had been targeted by Mossad and that there was “very strong intelligence” to suggest that he had been assassinated by the Israelis."

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-2-2007_pg1_10

If he was assassinated why would anyone affiliated with the assassination let any information about their involvment be made public?

I would be more inclined to think his death was an accident or that he missed a deadline and his superiors got upset. I am sure he has been replaced already and his death will have no real impact one way or the other Iran's plans.

First of all, let's consider the source of the "information". Rheva Bhalla does not work for the US government in any capacity other than a consultant. He is not with the State Department. He is not with the CIA. He works for a consultant/private entity. That means he's not necessarily privy to any information. He might well be, but quoting him in this article pretty much kills him as a good source for other material.

Second, this also seems like a great way to misdirect attention. As in "hey look at that over there!" while stealing the leprechaun's pot of gold.