Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Experts: Danger of Nuclear-Armed Iran Hyped
WASHINGTON - A hostile country led by anti-American ideologues appears close to developing its first nuclear weapon and, as a U.S. election approaches, the president and his advisers debate a pre-emptive military strike. Newspaper columnists demand action to stop the nuclear peril.
The country was China, the year was 1963 and the president was Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Now it is Iran that is said to may be bent on acquiring nuclear arms, and President Bush who has declared that "unacceptable." Some U.S. officials and outside commentators are again pushing for a pre-emptive attack.
But the White House and its partisans may be inflating the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran, say experts on the Persian Gulf and nuclear deterrence. While there are dangers, they acknowledge, Iran appears to want a nuclear weapon for the same reason other countries do: to protect itself.
Bush, by contrast, has suggested that a nuclear-armed Iran could bring about World War III. The president and his top aides, along with hawkish commentators, have suggested that Iran might launch a first strike on Israel or the United States, or hand nuclear weapons to terrorist groups Tehran supports.
There is "only one terrible choice, which is either to bomb those (Iranian nuclear) facilities and retard their program or even cut it off altogether, or allow them to go nuclear," Norman Podhoretz, a foreign policy adviser to GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, said last month.
"Would I like Iran to have a nuclear bomb? No," said Robert Jervis, a Columbia University professor of international politics who has written widely on nuclear deterrence. But, "the fears (voiced) by the administration and a fair number of sensible people as well, just are exaggerated. The idea that this will really make a big difference, I think is foolish."
Even some commentators in Israel, whose leaders see themselves in Iran's crosshairs, present a more nuanced view of the potential threat than the White House does.
An Iranian nuclear bomb could present Israel "with the real potential for an existential threat," Ephraim Kam of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv wrote in February.
But Kam noted that Israel has its own unacknowledged nuclear deterrent - estimated at 100 to 200 warheads - larger than anything Iran could marshal for years to come.
Despite Iran's "messianic religious motivations," he wrote, "it is highly doubtful that Tehran would want to risk an Israeli nuclear response" by attempting a first strike.
Moreover, Iran, which says its nuclear research is aimed at generating electric power, is not thought to be close to having a nuclear weapon. In the worst-case scenario, it could have enough highly enriched uranium, a basic weapon ingredient in weapons, in two to three years.
The International Atomic Energy Agency is due to report next week on whether Iran has cleared up questions about its past nuclear work. The IAEA's judgment will influence whether the U.N. Security Council imposes new sanctions on Iran for failing to suspend uranium enrichment.
Bush administration officials insist that Iran is different from other countries that have sought and acquired nuclear weapons.
The world's known nuclear club is comprised of the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.
"Iran has been willing to share technology and arms with terrorists and inappropriate regimes, in the way these others haven't," said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"The underlying facts of Iran and of nuclear weapons are different than these other cases," the official said. "I think they would behave differently."
In fact, U.S. ally Pakistan provided nuclear weapons technology to Iran and Libya, and North Korea has sold ballistic missiles in several Middle Eastern countries.
Iran's government is "a regime that is very aggressive in pursuit of its goals," added former undersecretary of state Robert Joseph, a conservative. "Having nuclear weapons would make it even more aggressive."
It is difficult to judge whether Iran would be deterred from using nuclear weapons because the West has limited understanding of the government in Tehran and the United States has mainly indirect communications, analysts say.
"We haven't talked to the Iranians well enough. We talked to the Soviets all the time," said former CIA analyst Judith Yaphe, now at the National Defense University. She added: "But I don't trust someone like (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadenijad to understand where the red lines are."
Others, including Columbia's Jervis, say the U.S. government has not examined in depth how a nuclear armed Iran might behave for a simple reason: Bush's policy is that Iran will not be allowed to have the bomb.
U.S., Israeli and European concerns about a nuclear Iran generally fall into three categories:
The first is that it would hand over a nuclear weapon to terrorists, hoping to elude responsibility for an attack on Israel or America.
But Kam, the Israeli analyst, wrote that the chance of this "appears low." A more serious worry, he wrote, is that Iran could deter Israel from acting against Hezbollah, Iran's terrorist proxy that opposes Israel's existence.
Mohsen Sazegara, who helped found Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and is now a U.S.-based dissident, also predicted Iran would not engage in nuclear terrorism. "If I found out somebody was thinking of this, I'd have to say I don't know my country," he said.
The second concern is that a nuclear-armed Iran would prompt Arab powers such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt to seek their own bombs, sparking an arms race in the perpetually unstable Middle East.
"They're all talking about it now," Yaphe said. "That's a bad thing."
The third is that Iran, because of its radical religious government, will not be deterred from using nuclear weapons. Podhoretz said during a PBS debate that with Iran under the control of clerics and the "religious fanatic" Ahamadinejad "there's no assurance that self-preservation or the protection, preservation of the nation, will deter them."
But Jervis noted that in the early 1960s, Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung "was foaming at the mouth" with anti-Americanism.
President Johnson took no military steps to stop China from going nuclear, and it tested a weapon in 1964.
Iran's leaders suspect the United States wants to overthrow them. "Nuclear weapons mainly protect the homeland," Jervis said.
© 2007 McClatchy Newspapers
45 Comments so far
Show AllKEM PATRICK November 12th, 2007 10:16 pm
"I really don't believe any of those questions are absolutely sensible."
When you're dealing with a lunatic fringe trying to persuade Americans that it is in their best interest that the United States invade Iran because they might be bent on acquiring nuclear arms, don't you think it would be wise to question the possibility of Iran already being in posession of nukes before we start another war in the Middle East based on flawed intelligence?
It's the probability of Iran already having nuclear warheads, not absolute proof they do or don't. Geopolitics and the global need for "oil" plays a major role in these probabilities occuring.
Questions are always sensible when the leaders of a country want to take its citizens into war. If more people had questioned the probability of being fed false information before the U.S. invaded Iraq, we might not be there today.
There are very few certainties in life but there are infinite possibilites.
America always needs an enemy to justify its actions across the globe. So it's only natural that America fabricates a bogyman and uses it to frighten its citizens.
Hoa binh
Of course the militaty industrial complex always needs an enemy to keep milking the taxpayer cash cow. At this point since we lost our manufacturing base and the dollar is crashing this is the only thing keeping the American economy afloat..no doubt as Eisenhower warned it will be our downfall too.
"...But Kam noted that Israel has its own unacknowledged nuclear deterrent - estimated at 100 to 200 warheads - larger than anything Iran could marshal for years to come"
Maybe so, but Israel's size as a country, and the population distribution makes it so that only a few warheads would inflict catastrophic damage.
""We haven't talked to the Iranians well enough. We talked to the Soviets all the time," said former CIA analyst Judith Yaphe, now at the National Defense University. She added: "But I don't trust someone like (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadenijad to understand where the red lines are.""
If a CIA analyst who should be "in the know" on Iran's intention is mystified, then we should not be so cocky ourselves in our judgements.
http://www.magicgoofball.blogspot.com/
And still we won't talk with Iran. The sociopaths in the administration just want to bomb them back to the stone age. Much more gratifying to a psychotic personality such as Cheney, Bush, or Rice.
Read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" and you will understand the real reason for their wanting to bomb Iran. One of the most frightening and important books I have read.
Of course Iran is interested in nuclear weapons for the same reasons as other nations: primarily for deterrence, and also national prestige and a freer hand to act aggressively if need be (a nuclear power can deter other nuclear powers from attacking it or interfering with something it is doing).
Let's stop pretending, at least, that anyone can seriously believe that Iran's nuclear program is solely for electricity. If they do not necessarily intend to build nuclear weapons, they very clearly intend to have the capability to do so, which first of all means the ability to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium. They are openly building the facilities needed for both, and NOT needed in order for them to have nuclear power plants.
I believe we can live with Iran having this capability, and I don't believe they would launch a suicidal attack on the US, Europe or Israel. Iran has indicated its willingness to make peace with all three, even with Israel. However, some people don't think Iran can be trusted. It's a mistake to ascribe this solely to "imperialism" although it is partly connected with the desire of the US and Israel not to be subject to deterrence by Iran, and to dampen Iranian ambitions to be a dominant regional power. It is also, for many people, the real fear of an "irresponsible" hostile power, one whose lawmakers reportedly break out in chants of "Death to America, Death to Israel" when voting to support their nuclear program.
The risks of a military attack to try to stop the Iranian nuclear project are already very high, and unfortunately they are rapidly increasing. That is unfortunate because, from the point of view of those in Israel and in the US who want to bomb Iran to stop their nuclear program, time is running out.
This crap about terrorists getting a nuclear bomb drive me nuts. I ain't no expert, but I have seen the container nuclear warheads come in whilst in the Navy. They are carried on a flatbed trailer. And the "suitcase" bomb is very misleading. Nuclear warheads are carried in very heavy containers. Even if a bomb was the size of a suitcase it would be very heavy. Not exactly easy to transport with out attracting attention. Not to mention the stray radiation that is detectable.
Yet, the hysterical among us thrive on the fear produced by scary stories. The utter stupidity of some americans is astounding.
leighton November 12th, 2007 1:12 pm
sociopath
Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others
psychopath
A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
RE: "...The sociopaths in the administration..."
I think you mean the latter NOT the former...
Thomas Albright...Just to clarify an issue...This article speaks of Iran developing a nuclear weapons capabilty most likely delivered as a warhead atop a missle. I don't know for sure, but I doubt they have an ICBM that would threaten our continent. They probably have missles capable of hitting a neighbor like Israel.I don't believe they are writing about "suitcase" nuclear bombs..if indeed they exist anywhere.
Yes that is true. I'm saying that in the "news" they always talk about rogue nations giving a nuke to terrorists. I think that is far fetched. As far as an ICBM, that is also far fetched. First, Iran is not close to building a weapon. There is no evidence they are enriching uranium to weapons grade. As long as the IAEA keeps an eye on Iran I can't see how they could get a bomb. This is just fear mongering aimed at the tragically stupid.
Capitalism (the USA) and Communism (Soviet Union, and China) balanced each other with the MAD doctrine for decades. We can assume that Israel and Islamic regimes likewise understand how this worked pretty well. The wild card questions are: 1) Can religions be relied upon to restrain themseleves with MAD as well as economic ideologies did? 2) What happens if an independent ideology-driven group (not a "country", but a "faction") gets a nuke?
Thomas Albright -
If terrorists were reasonably competent and could obtain HEU, they could make a crude fission bomb that would be transportable in a car or van. It would be detectable from a short distance but only if there was a detector there to detect it. In reality, it is likely that such a weapon could be transported to its destination within the US particularly if some care were taken to avoid places where detectors might be located.
Iran will be able to produce HEU for a bomb within a year or two at the most, so the concern is not entirely unfounded even though it seems to me very unlikely that Iran would give the stuff to terrorists. Pakistan has tons of it, and there are other stocks around the world that still may not be very well secured.
Mark, with all due respect, I have seen no credible evidence that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade.
The White House's propaganda campaign laying the groundwork for military action against Iran dates back almost six years—to Bush's 2002 State of the Union address in which he designated Iran as a founding member of the "axis of evil." Since then, this drumbeat has waxed and waned as other concerns—primarily the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq—have often commanded center stage. Now, with the Bush administration approaching its final year in office, a renewed push and a shorter fuse are increasingly evident. My 3-minute YouTube video entitled "Forewarned Is Forearmed: Bush On Iran" is available HERE. It offers a very brief but deeply troubling chronicle of the president's public warmongering and demonization of Iran. As has been said before, "the hour is getting late."
I do not pretend to understand all this in the least. But I do know that we're hypocrits, given that we have more bombs than anyone else, are making new and improved sorts of nukes every day, don't want to get rid of any of ours yet squawk the loudest about other people getting some. Most likely because they're scared of us! And rightly so!
And I do notice that other folks that have gotten nukes (India, Pakistan, North Korea), haven't been subject to the same sort of DOOM IS NIGH! propaganda that Iran is. As Mark Abram said above, there are tons of nuclear material lying about relatively unguarded in the world (particularly in those republics that used to be part of Russia) if terrorists want to make a bomb. We could bomb Iran back to the stone age and not be one whit safer from terrorists getting nuclear material. So I have to assume that this isn't about Iran getting the Bomb at all-it's about Israel and oil. As usual.
Thomas, there is not much evidence that Iran is enriching to weapons grade, but it is possible that they are doing so in a clandestine facility, and more importantly, the same 3,000 centrifuges that they now claim to have operating at Natanz can be used first to enrich to LEU, then run it again through the same units (or actually, just rearrange the piping) to produce HEU for bombs. Most of the separative work is actually in the first stage, i.e. going from natural uranium to LEU. Making HEU from LEU takes as little as 1/8 of the time.
I don't think the Iranians are producing HEU, but they could be, and more importantly the same capabilities they are openly developing to produce LEU can be used to produce HEU very quickly once Iran accumulates a stockpile of LEU.
Thomas Albright..I like complete communication, so I'll say...I understand. And, I unfortunately agree with "tragically stupid". Although, to allow the benefit of doubt, I'll say "tragically ignorant".I always try to be optimistic enough to think that if the "average" American citizen had the true facts...not those spun by the MSM....they would be up in arms. Am I a "dreamin man"?...yeah...I guess that's my problem. (credit to Neal Young).
Stop the tapdancing--there is NO EVIDENCE that Iran has produced ANY HEU, NONE! and that was the most recent from the IAEA.
As I posted before, Iran faces a deficient energy future just as the USA does, and as the USA did, it is trying to include nuclear energy in its overall enegy portfolio, just as every other OECD country has. This link, http://aspo-germany.org/e/aspo_news/aspo/Newsletter032.pdf is to the ASPO Newsletter that details Iran's endowment and proves quite well that Iran's hydrocarbon resources will NOT satisfy its future energy demand.
No, the confrontation with Iran has NOTHING to do with anything nuclear, power or weapons. It does have EVERYTHING to do with geopolitics in general and the geopolitics of ENERGY SECURITY quite specifically.
In a related note, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the USA has published figures showing that US oil extraction has dropped below 5Mbpd for the first time without any hurricane caused shut-in, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t11c.xls Extraction rose to a post Katrina high of 5,240,000 in May this year but has dropped every month since then, with August 2007 at 4,976,000 bp/d. We also have gas stations in Iowa and North Dakota running out of product to sell, as reported by folks living there. Many countries, rich and poor, are reporting diesel supply problems, and the MSM still is trying to blame high prices or futures speculators and OPEC, when its funadamental demand outstripping supply. What's of interest is the longstanding sanctions regime has hurt Iran's ability to increase supply; so, it can be truely said that US policy is directly contibuting to higher oil prices, and thus to higher costs of almost EVERYTHING.
The assertion that "Iran, because of its radical religious government, will not be deterred from using nuclear weapons," is absurd. Iran's Supreme Leader has publicly declared nuclear weapons to be forbidden under Islamic law. It would undermine the legitimacy of the regime to even construct a weapon, much less use one.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=156702
Why is so much attention given to Podhoretz? I don't know much about the guy, but he seems like a Machiavellian fanatic bent on distorting facts for his own benefit.
karlof1 - Swabs taken by the IAEA from a centrifuge in Iran were assayed as showing traces of HEU. This was a few years ago; look it up yourself. The most likely explanation for that is that the particular centrifuges or components thereof had been imported from Pakistan where they had been used to make HEU. But some people would say that is evidence.
More relevant is the fact that, now that Iran is producing P-1 centrifuges itself, it is possible that some of them have been installed at an undeclared facility somewhere and are being used to produce HEU on an experimental basis.
What is really most relevant is the fact that Iran's openly declared centrifuge facility at Natanz can be used to produce HEU, and if it started with stockpiled LEU it could already produce enough HEU for a bomb within a few months. When fully operational, with 60,000 centrifuges, it could turn out about a bomb's worth of HEU from natural uranium in about a month. That represents essentially a nuclear weapons capability.
These are not controversial statements, although the numbers are a bit fuzzy. This is not any alleged secret intelligence; it is what Iran has declared and the IAEA reported. Look it up yourself.
Of *course* Iran is a terrible danger to the planet!! ~ They wear funny hats don't they?
It's a well-known FACT that *ALL* people who wear funny hats are complete nutters, and are just looking to eat our babies, rape our poodles, and run terribly amok with our golf buggies...
Of course, if they Eye-rane-yans were to all start wearing baseball caps they would be on *our side*, and we'd allow 'em to have loads and loads of loverly nuclear christmas presents,
-Hell- we'd give 'em away for free with every purchase of a shiny new SUV!
Darnnnn, ... If only everyone wuz just like us, this Planet of America would be a safer, nicer, (loonier) place to be!
...
I looked it up myself. I went to www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/dg-iran-dprk.html. Dr. Elbaradei said that to date, "the agency had not seen any diversion of nuclear materials... Nor the capacity to produce weapons usable materials.
"I don't think the Iranians are producing HEU, but they could be, and more importantly the same capabilities they are openly developing to produce LEU can be used to produce HEU very quickly once Iran accumulates a stockpile of LEU."
Once again, Mark Abram, more Rumsfeldian logic. Haven't you learned that messing with foreign sovereigns that are no threat to us is both dangerous and imperialistic?
You obviously have the answer. Please go to the Middle East and fix it, but for God's sake, for my son's sake, and for the sake of the parents who I spoke with last night who are furious and torn apart that their son will never be whole again after coming back from Iraq broken in body and mind - for all our sakes, don't spout this shit anymore in this country. Take it to Iran and fix it! Or, enlist in the U.S. or Israeli armies and do something that is in alignment with your views, just don't have the unconscionable temerity to leave it up to other people. You want to poke other countries with your stick? Go! Do it over there!
right,
remember the "Aluminum tubes" and the "Mobile chem weapon trucks" in Iraq?
Positive evidence they said, all proven to be a pile of shit.
How come the US has to blow people up to steal their oil? Just tell them you are taking it or pay them pennies for it.
I have a hard time understanding Norman Podhoretz at the best of times: "(t)here is "only one terrible choice, which is either to bomb those (Iranian nuclear) facilities and retard their program or even cut it off altogether, or allow them to go nuclear," Norman Podhoretz, a foreign policy adviser to GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, said last month". In that quote Podhoretz offered not "one", but two choices, and only the first one (war against Iran) is terrible. A nuclear Iran would be no different than is a nuclear Pakistan, or a nuclear North Korea. The real powers in control of North Korea and Pakistan are not any more stable, or any more fond of the west than is Iran. Both North Korea and Pakistan foster and foment terrorism (Pakistan was the last country to stop recognizing the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan). Both North Korea and Pakistan have done more to foster the proliferation of nuclear technology (and the "bomb" in particular) than has Iran. North Korea and Pakistan (as well as Israel) developed nuclear programs in defiance of the International Atomic Energy Agency's rule and protocols, and refuse to join the Agency or be supervised by it; Iran joined the IAEA, and has not done anything to violate its rules or protocols. Both North Korea and Pakistan have initiated pre-emptive wars against their neighbours, unlike Iran, which hasn't attacked anyone in 2000 years. No, Iran is not the threat here. The real threat is the extent to which Israel is pulling the U.S. government's strings on this one, and the extent to which the Bush Administration is willing to lie, cheat, prevaricate, and dissemble in order to serve Israel's interests.
Question: If Iran having a nuclear weapon represents a threat to the US, whyinhell do we spend billions of dollars on subs, bombers, missiles, and TEN THOUSAND NUCLEAR WARHEADS ? ? ? ?
I'm a bit perturbed by thiscomment in the article:
" "Iran has been willing to share technology and arms with terrorists and inappropriate regimes, in the way these others haven't," said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
In fact, U.S. ally Pakistan provided nuclear weapons technology to Iran and Libya, and North Korea has sold ballistic missiles in several Middle Eastern countries."
For what it's worth, France and Britain were falling over themselves to give Israel nuclear - sorry, that should be nucular, now that the dubya himself has rewritten the English language - fuels, technology, etc. Without any guarantees, without any requirement that Israel accede to any Non-Proliferation Treaty, etc ...
I don't like the feeling that it's alright that Federal officials in a high position of trust, should be required to be half-wits. But I suppose the dubya himself is rewriting the Federal employment requirements in his image ...
"The world's known nuclear club is comprised of the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea."
If memory serves me, China is getting approximately 30% of its desperately need oil from Iran and has a good relationship with the Iranian government. Is there any absolute proof that China hasn't already supplied them with nuclear warheads?
GAIL, you ask is there any absolute proof China hasn't already supplied Iran with nuclear warheads?
Is there any absolute proof we haven't supplied Isreal with nuclear warheads?
Is there any absolute proof that Russia hasn't supplied Mexico with nuclear warheads?
Is there any absolute proof that Iran wishes to have nuclear warheads?
Is there any absolute proof that France hasn't supplied Cuba with nuclear warheads?
Is there any absolute proof that giant sized UFOs aren't watching our every move?
I really don't believe any of those questions are absolutely sensible.
Mark Abram your friends on the IDF hit squad are calling you. Better answer as pretty soon they'll be fighting a nasty backlash from all the countries in the world that Israel managed to piss off including the good citizens of the United States of America.
One reason I bother to post in this space, apart from the pleasure of chatting with others interested in these news items, is that I really don't like the style of argument, which is all too common on both the Left and Right, which says you should be all on one side of an issue and not acknowledge the complexities, ambiguities, and factors not convenient to your own position.
My position, just to be clear, on the matter of attacking Iran, is that rather than debating whether to attack Iran, we should be debating whether debating whether to attack Iran is something a civilized nation would do. And that an attack on Iran would probably let loose the dogs of Hell, and that it would take many years to get them back into the fiery kennel if we were so lucky as to have so many years before the fire consumed us all.
However, I really don't think it can be useful for those of us making that case to do so with implausible canards and assertions that sound as if we are hopelessly naive or wishful thinkers about what Iran is actually up to, for its part. It seems to me that accuracy is a desirable and necessary thing, and in any case I really can't understand wanting to assert something that just isn't so.
Thus, to reply briefly:
Thomas Albright - Baradei is a diplomat, and a fighter for peace, but even so he makes many statements and the IAEA makes many statements and I'm sure you can find lots more passages like the ones you quoted which sound very reassuring, but everything I wrote above is consistent with the IAEA's reporting.
iammyself - You quote an accurate statement I made and label it "Rumsfeldian logic" but where is the logic? What I wrote is simply factual.
liberty - You don't like complexity, either. Somehow that makes me part of an "IDF hit squad." Sigh.
Mark:
You are absolutely correct and please keep posting. Everyone seems to be missing Mark's point. He is not saying the U.S. should attack Iran, but to ignore the obvious (Iran's attempt to acquire a nuclear weapon), is to engage in wishful thinking.
Again, I will interject the third way of solving this - negotiations. Even though no one seems to be interested at this time, it is a viable, and peaceful solution. Otherwise, the world is left with two, unfortunate situations.
And, be forewarned, if you take an ethnic swing at me, like you did with Mark, I'll make you look like a fool.
Make love not war,
Ramsay
And one last thing, before this day ends, and I go to sleep.
Today, I honor my uncles who fought for our country in the fields of France and in the Pacific Ocean, and my cousin who was never the same after he returned from Vietnam.
I promise them, that I shall never take for granted, their service and their sacrifice. Whether they fought, a good war or a bad war, they fought for me. And today, I honor them by fighting for the cause of peace, and to protect the constitution, for which they gave their oath, and pledged alleigance, and risked their lives to defend. I shall not be the one who allows their dreams to die.
Peace,
Ramsay
A fact that manages somehow to stay unreported in the mainstream, is that on August 9, 2005 Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons.
This official statement was made at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
A transcript of the debate between Fareed Zakaria and Norman Podhoretz regarding a military strike on Iran because of its nuclear ambitions is available at:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec07/iran_10-29.html
Podhoretz came across as borderline senile.
I don't think many American really believe this threat is real except maybe the 'fringe lunatics' on the right who listen to the purveyor's of hate! Most of them can be found on 'Fox noise'! There is one who is on at 6:00 pm west coast time. I don't know who the guy is? I have only come across his tirades when trying to find something else to watch and do it a channel at a time. I think it might be on a CNN channel but I am not certain. But, the guy is rabid. Why news media's put this kind of venom on and call it anything close to news is unbelievable. But, that guy is down right vicious in his rants about Iran and nuclear weapons! The venom he spews is indecent. How people with any semblance of a conscious can spew vile crap like that and not be bothered by it. It tells me something (and it isn't good) about people that listen to this kind of propaganda daily and don't seem to have the ability to see through the transparency of what they are trying to do to this country. But, I have no doubts these people will get the 'fringe lunatics' worked into a frenzy and then start another war. It's too bad people in this country aren't any brighter than to listen 'hate mongering' like that. Personally, I am more worried about the nut George W Bush who has his finger on the nuclear weapons trigger. He has been known to have a itchy trigger finger before.
God tells Bush what to do. At least Bush actually believes he is hearing God speak to him.
We have a relative who is brain dead from drugs and alcohol and he hears voices also, he's nuttier than a squirll's nest.
NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday accused Iran of spreading "violent extremism" across the Middle East and said a strong Palestinian state could act as a bulwark against this threat.
ADVERTISEMENT
Speaking to American Jewish leaders at a conference in Nashville, Tennessee, Rice reassured them of Washington's commitment to protect longtime ally Israel against threats from Tehran and said successful Palestinian statehood negotiations could counter Iran's power in the region.
"We will defend against any action, as we always have, that would compromise Israel's security," Rice said to applause from delegates at the meeting of the United Jewish Communities.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071113/pl_nm/iran_usa_rice_dc
Since Common Dreams didn't pick up on this, I thought I would post it here.
Why do our officials sound most bellicose about the middle east when they are addressing gatherings of American Jews?
---
Mark Abram wrote:
"iammyself - You quote an accurate statement I made and label it "Rumsfeldian logic" but where is the logic? What I wrote is simply factual."
You wrote: "Let's stop pretending, at least, that anyone can seriously believe that Iran's nuclear program is solely for electricity. If they do not necessarily intend to build nuclear weapons, they very clearly intend to have the capability to do so, which first of all means the ability to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium. They are openly building the facilities needed for both, and NOT needed in order for them to have nuclear power plants."
Where are your facts, Mark Abram? What proof do you have that Iran intends to build nuclear arms? And if you don't have proof, are you encouraging the U.S. to take military action against Iran based on no proof? If so, that is exactly what Rumsfeld was after in Iraq when he said, "The absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence."
While this may be true at any moment in any situation, it is an extremely dangerous method of conducting foreign policy, especially in the tinderbox that is the middle east. If this is your platform, I believe you are an extremist.
@Iammyself, thank you for your brilliant 6:29 p.m. post.
Life is not without risk but you simply do not "fight for peace." I'm not saying that self defense is unacceptable but that obsessing so much about security raises the likelihood of creating a situation where none exists.
Iran has abided by the treaty on nuclear inspections that it signed, USA has not and Israel refuses to even sign it.
If anyone should be sanctioned, boycotted and shunned it is these two pariah nations.
I'm through with war. In good conscious I cannot condone anyone who joins the military to go 1/2 way around the world to kill, maim and destroy innocent people on the say so of politions who have been caught in repeated psychopathic lies.
No more parades & medals, but at least give these deceived military persons the health care, and benefits that were given after WWII.
How can any of these military fail to see how they've been duped?
This is how I see this whole matter and the entire thread discussing it.
To even feel the need to make arguments about Iran's capability or intention to have a nuclear weapon, we should first admit that we might possibly have a reasonable answer to the first,( assuming intelligence is not cooked), but as to intention, we should not project our own aggresive empire building motives on any other government or its people.
In fact, Iran, has all but begged the US for talks on several occasions in the last three years, and has been rebuffed everytime. How's that for reasonable people trying to come to some sort of understanding? Which one do you think has been reasonable?
Iran's top religious leader has also stated very clearly that use of a nuclear weapon is aa anathma to Islamic faith. Frankly I wish our self described WARRIORS FOR CHRIST would say the same thing about their faith. No such luck.
It is the height of arrogance for our govt to be telling another soverign nation it cannot have a weapon we have in deadly abundance. Oh that"s right....we would NEVER use them so we can be trusted. Oh, we're talking about using them? Nevermind...
Does anybody else see how absurd the whole discussion is?
I call it as I see and I recognize a Zionist supporter when I see one and Abrams is one otherwise why go into details about nuclear technology without an agenda and Abrams is going on and on about uranium particles and swabs. Bullshit. I'll call out anyone else who is pro-Zionist on this forum. They deserve to be outted the time for being PC is over. Israel has the largest nuclear arsenal in the Middle East why aren't we investigating them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N294FMDok98
youyourself-
First you quote this from my post:
> "If they do not necessarily intend to build nuclear weapons, they very clearly intend to have the capability to do so,"
Then you ask,
> "What proof do you have that Iran intends to build nuclear arms?"
So, if you are so careless, I don't know if it is worthwhile engaging you, but...
I DID NOT SAY Iran intends to build nuclear arms. I said they intend to have the CAPABILITY to do so. The proof of that is contained in the second part of the passage you quoted from my post,
> "which first of all means the ability to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium. They are openly building the facilities needed for both, and NOT needed in order for them to have nuclear power plants."
To put it another way, the facilities they are building, which are NOT needed for them to have nuclear power plants, WOULD give them the capability to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons, and that means they WOULD have the capability to make nuclear weapons, since the other things they would need are quite easy to come by. In the simplest case, they could use HEU to produce a Hiroshima-type gun assembly bomb, something even a small terrorist group should be able to do given the material.
So, that is the proof that Iran intends to have the capability to make nuclear weapons, regardless of whether they intend to actually make them.
Well, I'll admit, they could just be bluffing. Maybe they don't intend to actually finish these facilities that they've invested so much in at the risk of provoking an American or Israeli attack. I very much doubt it.
I also very much doubt that they intend to have the capability to make the bomb but never actually make one even if the US won't conclude a grand bargain and keeps on threatening to attack Iran.
You also asked,
> "are you encouraging the U.S. to take military action against Iran...?"
which I find very puzzling, if you actually read my posts.
liberty asks -
> "why go into details about nuclear technology without an agenda"
Maybe in order to tell the story as it really is, and also in the hope that people opposed to war won't make fools of themselves arguing absurdly that Iran's nuclear program is not a nuclear weapons program, which it very clearly is.
As for Israel, good point. The US is not concerned about Israel's nuclear weapons. Maybe it should be, or maybe it shouldn't be so concerned about Iran getting the bomb. Maybe instead of making so many threats, we should be leading the way toward nuclear disarmament in keeping with our obligations under the NPT (to say the least).
None of this has any bearing on whether it is plausible to say that Iran's efforts to obtain BOTH an independent uranium enrichment capability (at a cost far greater than that of buying uranium fuel from Russia or elsewhere) AND a plutonium production reactor (that's two, count 'em, two ways to make the bomb) somehow does not represent a bid to gain at least the capability to make nuclear weapons.
'First you quote this from my post:
> "If they do not necessarily intend to build nuclear weapons, they very clearly intend to have the capability to do so,"'
I quoted you for context, not to make you out to be a messiah, which you most assuredly are not.
'Then you ask,
> "What proof do you have that Iran intends to build nuclear arms?"
So, if you are so careless, I don't know if it is worthwhile engaging you, but…
I DID NOT SAY Iran intends to build nuclear arms. I said they intend to have the CAPABILITY to do so. The proof of that is contained in the second part of the passage you quoted from my post,'
Well, thank you for taking the time out of your valuable day to stoop to my level.
Be that as it may, you seem to be halving your way to whatever logic you may have, and then halving it again.
My point is this: We have just invaded and now occupy Iraq based on trumped up stories (lies) sounding very similar to the shit that you espouse. Nearly 4,000 U.S. servicepeople are dead, many more have been physically wounded, still many more psychologically damaged. Estimates of Iraqi civilian casualties run in the hundreds of thousands. Our national expenditure on this war/occupation is now estimated to be at or over one trillion dollars and it appears to be crippling our economy and damaging our infrastructure. Our standing in the world is in the shitter. Now, another middle east nation INTENDS (based on similar assumptions as those which led to war in Iraq) to to have the CAPABILITY to build nuclear arms (knowing that Iran has neighbors in the region who already have nuclear arms - Israel and Pakistan), and you want us to do what?
Mark, in all honesty, you've proven to be a chickenhawk. I'm not sure what your agenda is, but I have strong suspicions. I say, fine, stand by your principles. Go (middle) east young man, and do what you feel you must. Just, don't fuck this country over more than your cohorts already have.
youyourself-
> "thank you for taking the time out of your valuable day to stoop to my level."
Actually, I've been trying to avoid that.
> "We have just invaded and now occupy Iraq based on trumped up stories (lies) sounding very similar....another middle east nation INTENDS (based on similar assumptions as those which led to war in Iraq) to to have the CAPABILITY to build nuclear arms..."
Well, you see, that's the irony. Iraq in 2003 was NOT working on nuclear (or chemical or biological) weapons. The evidence available at that time showed that to be the case (and I said so at the time).
Iran today IS working on a nuclear weapons capability, and if it continues, it will have that capability fairly soon. All the evidence available shows this to be the case.
Therefore you are making a false comparison. And while there is a lot of well-justified skepticism out there, the facts are clear enough that those who argue "it's all bullshit" are going to lose the debate (already have, in fact). That is, actually, the main point I am trying to make here.
If you really want to try to stop this looming war, you need to begin by acknowledging the reality that, unlike Iraq in 2003, Iran in 2007 has a very real nuclear weapons project which is very advanced and not far (1-2 years) from giving them the capability to make a nuclear bomb in a very short time (1-2 months) if they decide to go ahead and do so.
> "you want us to do what?"
Actually, I'd like it if YOU stop replying with ad hominem personal attacks and go back and read through my various posts if you want to know what I think "we" should do.