Perhaps they fear that he will attack Iran, and when it turns out that the Iranians weren’t on the verge of having a nuke, Bush and friends would blame it all on them. I’ve heard plenty of attempts from the Right to blame the Iraq fiasco on the CIA and such; ignoring the fact that the neocons hand picked what intelligence they wanted to believe. I doubt they want any more blame shovelled off on them.
Actually, there’s no reason to produce weapon-grade HEU for even military nuclear piles; that degree of enrichment makes the pile too unstable to use. Enriched uranium for portable powerplants is around the 50% [sup]235[/sup]U level; weaponizable HEU would have to be in the >80% [sup]235[/sup]U concentration. It is possible to make a weapon with lower concentrations, but only with a dramatic increase in critical mass and the use of neutron reflectors, and then at great mass inefficiency. It certainly wouldn’t be the kind of weapon deliverable on the mythological ICBMs that the current Administration is planning to place interceptors in Eastern Europe to defend against.
In short, the claims that Iran is seriously working on weaponized highly enriched uranium are utter bolsh…but serve a larger strategic purpose. Hey, if Chewbacca is a Wookie, you must acquit. Look at the monkey!
It would be quicker, certainly, to start with an already enriched material, and the process of enrichment is essentially the same regardless of the eventual concentration. However, the degree of processing to create HEU over fuel grade enrichment is enormous. I don’t doubt that there are elements within the Iranian government which have or even will campaign for creating a nuclear arsenal, but the cost of doing so using a HEU weapon are enormous, and frankly from any rational standpoint (though this is a tenuous argument whenever it comes to nuclear weapon strategy, especially when it comes to ideologues) this arsenal would do them little good and much long term harm.
Dare I suggest that there is a diplomatic solution to this problem? Assuming that Iran’s interests are in fact benign, an international consortium could offer–with sufficient subsidy to make it economically appealing–to take the uranium resources that Iran is currently using and perform moderate enrichment on them, including “poisoning” with a neutron-absorbing element like [sup]240[/sup]Pu that will allow it to be used in a slow fission reactor but make it utterly unweaponizable. Of course, this would require ensuring that Iran would always have access to said fuel supply without the sort of chokehold that OPEC maintains on the oil supply. Given the current state of affairs and the existing Fundamentalist Islam control of Iran, that seems inconceivable at this point. But Iran was once the blossoming flower of liberalism in the Middle East, and it could be again, provided that U.S. policy isn’t as incredibly short-sighted as it has been for the past forty-odd years. Of course, it also requires that we aren’t at the beck and call of OPEC, and its headpiece, the House of Saud, either.
We–that is, the U.S. and its “Coalition of the Willing”–needs to stop assuming that there is a military solution to every problem, and start dealing in the non-manufactured reality where the threat and application of force does not always result in the desired solution. When Robert McNamara–certainly no lovey dove afraid of calculated violence and public deception–begins barefacedly accusing the Bush Administration of duplicity and incompetence, it’s an indication that the current wankers are even worse than the wankers he once hawked for. And if any Administration is more pointlessly aggressive than the Johnson and subsequent Nixon regimes, that’s something to be truly scared of.
As for why the intelligence community is speaking out now, it’s probably a combination of having been burned once by being made the fall guy, and that the neocons are on their way out, at least for the near term. The CIA needs to rebuild credibility, and their best way to do this is to–shocker, I know–tell the truth as they know it, rather than the politically acceptable and doctored version.
Stranger
In terms of presenting an actual,** real-world ** threat that would require a response from us, no.
You think we have a right, even an obligation perhaps, to go attack anybody who tosses around some rhetoric we don’t like? If we did, tell me, who’d be the bad guys then?
Gawdamighty, man, we claim to be civilized.
Now, if you can point out what “distortions” and “ideological misrepresentations” you see being made by those of us who point out that “they’re not doing it” means “they’re not doing it”, whatever their reason for not doing so might be, then please start. All you have so far is childish slander to back up your even more childish view of a nation’s responsible global citizenship.
Interesting. This bit of faith is certainly making the rounds as a talking point. An enemy of the US that has attacked our military and civilians numerous times is no threat. Reality be damned.
And I’ve said that… where?
I must admit, the patterns that some of the anti-Bush folks are falling into are absolutely fascinating. Pretending that Iran’s only hostile actions are ‘rhetoric’ is one of those talking points. It bears not even a passing similarity to reality, but it gets trotted out all the time. As does vibra’s bit of bullshit about how if you’re against lying about intelligence reports, you must be for war.
My bad, IOKIALDI, I see.
I’ve already gone to some trouble, including showing the actual quotes, how both the IAEA and the NIE took great pains not to say as a certainty “they’re not doing it”. The lie, of course, is that the NIE and the IAEA both actually say “we don’t know whether or not they’re doing it covertly, and Iran has been blocking us from getting more information” and then y’all claim “there, they said they’re not doing it!”
Wow. If that had any passing isomorphism to anything that actually transpired, anywhere, that’d be neat! But I guess if you’re going to start lying about what the NIE says, why not keep up such behavior when it comes to dreaming up charges of “slander” and inventing a position on a “nation’s responsible global citizenship” when all I’ve done is point out falsehoods. Evidently responsible global citizenship means mirroring the OSP if it means you can spin intelligence reports to your political position.
Don’t worry, I see I was wrong to ask if you thought that those on your ‘side’ should behave honestly. You can cherry pick “we’re not sure” and pretend that it’s “we’re sure” and you’re the goodguys, but the OSP cherrypicking “we’re not sure” and pretending it’s “we’re sure” makes them the badguys.
Sometimes partisan politics make me ill.
If you want to start a war, then any rationalization will do. Perhaps you could provide the highlights of what exactly Iran has done that requires it? Reality, ya know.
It’s an inevitable corollary for the statement you made to me just before that. Well, either that, or “Fuck it, I just want another war”, perhaps.
That’s all you’ve cited so far, rhetoric. Again, which hostile actions, ACTIONS, are you referring to?
Take your time, we can wait.
IOW, “I ain’t got shit, but since I’ve taken such a bellicose stand, I can’t admit it, even though everyone else knows”.
It isn’t a certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, either. But do you realize just how weak an argument based on not being able to prove a negative really is? Apparently not, or you wouldn’t be trying it.
And with “*moderate to high certainty”, * as the NIE actually says. You provided the quote yourself. Now you’re just being siilly.
That’s one of the things UN inspections are for.
They go take scrapings from funny spots around the plant, run them through a mass spectrometer, and presto, evil doers are unmasked.
There was a bit of excitement over some Iranian samples back in 2004:
Alarm Raised Over Quality Of Uranium Found in Iran
Results came back as 90% U235, definitely bomb grade stuff.
People were up in arms.
The Iranians said the samples were taken from some used equipment that they bought from Germany. That story checked out.
The germans need to be a little more fastidious about washing up their gas centrifuge parts before selling them on the open market.
Then the factual evidence, the reality, is that Germany is an even greater and more direct threat to the US and to world peace than Iran.
Okay, as you too have shown no desire at all to debate honestly, I’ll just show, yet again, how the talking points you’re using are deliberately dishonest, distorted, and obfuscatory. Here we go, again.
As you are simply making shit up and claiming that I have implied, stated, or that a necessary logical consequence of not lying about intel reports is war, I don’t really have to defend myself against your imagination.
Look up what ‘inevitable’ and ‘corollary’ mean. Is this dynamic, by the way, why you and yours feel that you absolutely have to lie on this topic? That if people know the truth rather than the lies, that war is somehow ‘inevitable?’
Not that I’m going to waste my time responding to your dishonesty anymore, I’m just curious. If you could elaborate on what purpose you feel that lying serves, it’d be interesting.
Again, the patterns among your political allies are truly fascinating. The same behaviors pop up over, and over and over again. The very fact that you are in a debate, talking about Iran, but obviously have no clue, at all, as to what Iran has done shows that you don’t let the facts get in the way of your ideology.
Since you evidently can’t even be bothered to use google (hint: “Iran, Hezbollah” is a good place to start clearing up your willful ignorance) before you post about something about which you know nothing, I’ll provide a couple of brief links for the peanut gallery. On the Marine Barracks bombing, on the Khobar Towers bombing.
Even a nifty soundbyte for the Marine Barracks bombing:
[
](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/)
I’m sure that this thread’s readers can determine the level of dishonesty to the talking point that’s trotted out, stating out that Iran is no threat to us, that they haven’t attacked us and that their continued support for Hezbollah is no reason for wariness of their intentions.
Another interesting bit of dishonesty that you and yours seem to trot out regularly, perhaps it needs exercise? Not lying about intel findings =/= being “bellicose”. Not lying about Iran’s history of arming, training, funding and directing attacks against us =/= “bellicose” Again, honestly and truly, I am curious as to what goal your lying is in support of. Can you let me in on the secret?
You must be taking lessons from the Luc School of Deliberately Deceptive Analogies. In the past, he’s argued that Iran is no more worrisome than Belgium, that a little old lady in a wheelchair is no more a cause of concern than Hezbollah and that hiding details of a nuclear program is no more cause for concern than hiding money in your mattress.
Not being able to verify the results of 20 years of Iran’s involvement with the AQ Khan nuclear blackmarket network, Iran hiding details of their current nuclear program as well as razing sites to the ground before the UN could inspect them? Not indicitave of anything. Naw awwwwh.
And that lack of evidence certainly doesn’t speak to whether or not we can be certain about the nature of their entire nuclear program. Because absence of evidence is… absence of evidence. And even if you don’t have all the evidence, and some is being hidden from you, why, by gum, you can still lie and pretend that you are certain and you have all the relevant evidence.
Mmmm hmmm. My contention, that being unable to prove the nature of Iran’s nuclear program because they are hiding details of it certainly has nothing to do with whether or not we’d be able to prove the nature of Iran’s nuclear program. I’m sure there’s no reason to doubt the insivisible fire breathing flying dragon, either.
The fact of the matter and yes, I’m sorry, I know you hate facts and think that not lying leads to war, or something… but the fact of that matter is that the experts are not certain that Iran has no covert nuclear program. That even the IAEA has said that, given proper cooperation from Iran, they could clear up such questions. That the fact of the matter is that absence of evidence is an absence of evidence, and with evidence being deliberately withheld about a nuclear program, we cannot come to a firm judgment, as you pretend.
It’s like someone saying “there is a green rock in this closed box” and someone else saying “Okay, let me open the box and see, or I can’t be sure”. And then, of course, you running up and saying that we can be sure that there’s a green rock in the closed box and that just because we don’t know what’s in the box has nothing to do with whether or not we know what’s in the box.
But you can’t let facts, epistemology or learning about an issue before you post on it get in the way of your rhetoric, or else… war might result!
The facts (ayieee, war!) of the situation are that the experts offer no certainty, and do not certify that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. They say the exact opposite, that due to Iran hiding details of its nuclear program, they can certify no such thing.
No, I’m pointing out that you’re lying. But if telling the truth leads to war, maybe pointing out that you’re lying makes one silly?
Moderate to high certainty does not mean that they’ve said they “they’re not doing it.” And, since IOKIALDI, you deliberately handwave away “all the cautions and assessments of probabilities, ignore all the competing interpretations, and present the resulting cherrypick as unanimously-agreed facts”
Surely even someone as beholden to choosing ideology over reality can recognize that when the NIE says they can’t be sure, and you claim that the NIE has said something for sure, you’re lying?
I’ll also point out that, in your hypocrisy, you cherrypicked what the NIE said. Even ignoring that moderate certainty =/= certainty, you deliberately ignored that instead of “they’re not doing it” the NIE went to great lengths to clarify that “(Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.)”
Yet you, and similarly dishonest folks with a political agenda, present this as if the NIE has certified, as the OP pretended “Iran is not working on a bomb”.
They didn’t. You’re making it up.
The NIE paper, in fact, spends roughly an entire page trying to stop ideologues from lying about their findings.
And you pretend that when the NIE says “moderate” they really meant to say “high”. When the NIE says that it is “plausible” that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program, you dishonestly recast it as a definite “they stopped it”.
The NIE went to great lengths to stop partisan political actors from claiming that they had rendered a solid judgment. You and yours have deliberately ignored that, OSP style. The only real difference between your clique’s actions and the OSP’s is the political cause your lying serves. That’s it. You’re both committed to lying in order to support a bogus view of reality. You only quibble over what you should be lying for.
We’re supposed to be fighting ignorance, not spreading it deliberately.
Luckily, people can still read and they can see that what you’re saying is bullshit. People can still read and know that something that is only “moderately certain”, that something is only “plausibly” not going on is not the same as definitively saying “They’re not doing it.” No matter how much you lie. Sorry.
Oh, and because this is just a gem:
I think that our objective readers can certainly determine for themselves whether someone whose position is based on lies, who makes statements about other nations that he knows virtually nothing about, and who claims that Germany is more of a threat to world peace than the number one supporter of global terrorism on the planet… has a reliable political opinion.
I think this is a key point. Bush is never going to get the go-ahead for another pre-emptive war. But if he wants a war with Iran he can make it happen. All he needs to do is stage some pushy military exercises along the Iraqi-Iranian frontier and eventually Ahmadinejad (who isn’t the most restrained world leader around) is going to snap at the bait and launch an attack of his own. Then Bush can go before Congress and tell how we were the innocent target of an unprovoked attack and must now reluctantly defend ourselves against Iran. Who’s going to stand up and say “Sure that Iranian airstrike killed 200 American soldiers - but they shouldn’t have been there in the first place”? Nobody. All Bush has to do is trick Ahmadinejad into striking the first blow and he’s got his war.
There’s a strong argument for Iran being the most stable government of the M.E.
He can’t launch a war, but the Supreme Leader could.
Iran’s Thug in Chief is mostly there to spout propaganda, very few of the real decisions are made by him.
Not really, as a strong majority of Iranians reject their theocratic leaders and want democracy. That their government is brutal, oppressive and has draconian reprisals that keep many critics in line is certainty true, but absent that force, they would almost certainly crumble.
Other regimes in the region ‘enjoy’ a similar balancing act. Those who don’t know about the events at Hama, Syria, for example (and the world’s reaction) are missing a key component of ME politics.
Even so, Iran’s level of stability is not at odds with it destabilizing the region via the exportation of Islamic fundamentalism and/or terrorism. A country can be relatively stable on the homefront and export revolution to its neighbors.
Just a second there, hoss. Back there on page one you threw a hissy fit on me, calling me a liar about seven or eight times, then storm out and slam the door, announcing that you will no longer engage. Your privilege, and somehow I’ll have to find the strength to go on.
But if you don’t have the sand to engage me, it kinda behooves you not to bring me into the conversation, don’t you think?
Besides, Elvis don’t need any lessons from me, he could make hash out of these lame arguments behind a quart of bourbon and a frontal lobotomy. Hell, the hamsters are snickering.
I have heard this name before. Who is Norman Podhoretz? Why does he want the US to conduct military operations against Iran?
I think you’re splitting hairs. In the vernacular, I would say those two sentences mean the same thing. I do not think “Iran is not working on a bomb” is at all an inaccurate paraphrasing of the intelligence assessment.
Norman Podhoretz is the former editor of Commentary and part of the neocon brain trust that’s been highly influential in formulating Republican policy since Reagan’s election in 1980.
I don’t think this, or anything similar is a plausible outcome. The tried and true is an astroturf campaign through the tame media, then blam.
A gram of critical thinking in American public life will inoculate the whole continent against its Right Wing politics. And it is out there now, everywhere around. So Bush & Co are choking.
Thank you. Do you have an insight on his stance towards Iran?
But shouldn’t the burden of proof here be on those who claim that Iran is building a bomb? So if they’re “moderately” sure the program has not re-started, should it not then require very solid proof indeed to make the claim that they are building a bomb? I think in this case, the burden of proof for a positive claim ought to be much higher than that for a negative claim, since a potential war hangs in the balance.
The result of a genetic experiment gone terribly wrong, splcing stem cells harvested from rectal tissues with the residue from a tarantula’s Pap smear.
(Might be the wrong person to ask. Don’t much care for him.)
Apparently Bush wants to junk the NNPT.
Condi says “We need to do everything we can to stop them from being able to perfect this enrichment and reprocessing program,”
What a surprising ‘nuance’ this is from the idiots who pulled out of the ABM treaty in order to spend billions deploying an undeveloped and untested Starwars system.