Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Both McCain, Obama Exaggerating Iran's Nuclear Program
WASHINGTON - The presumptive Republican nominee for president and the leading contender for the Democratic nomination are exaggerating what's known about Iran's nuclear program as they duel over how best to deal with Tehran.
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., say that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
The U.S. intelligence community, however, thinks that Iran halted an effort to build a nuclear warhead in mid-2003, and the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, which is investigating the program, has found no evidence to date of an active Iranian nuclear-weapons project.
The candidates' comments raise questions about how carefully the two have studied the public record on what's become a major campaign issue and is one of the most difficult foreign-policy challenges likely to confront the next president.
The issue is also significant because the Bush administration inflated assessments of the Iraqi nuclear threat and the possibility that former dictator Saddam Hussein could pass nuclear weapons to terrorists as it sought to whip up public support for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Iran has been expanding an industrial-scale uranium enrichment program in defiance of U.N. Security Council demands that it be suspended. Enrichment is the process that produces low-enriched uranium fuel for nuclear generating stations and highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.
Iran, whose known enrichment facilities are under IAEA monitoring, says it's making low-enriched uranium reactor fuel and has no intention of developing weapons. Few experts, however, think that Iran has come clean about all its nuclear activities.
In a major speech Monday to a powerful Jewish American lobbying group, McCain asserted that Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons that threaten the security of Israel and could be passed to terrorist groups.
"Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons poses an unacceptable risk, a danger we cannot allow," he told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Israel, however, is thought to have a significant nuclear arsenal of its own, and an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would invite a devastating nuclear counterstrike.
In criticism aimed at Obama, McCain said, "The idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refused to engage in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history."
McCain was referring to an interview Friday with Fox News in which Obama rebuked President Bush for rejecting direct negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program.
"Iran is stronger now than when George Bush took office," Obama said. "And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons."
Neither campaign immediately responded to requests for comment on its candidate's assertions.
The 16 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community said last November in an unclassified National Intelligence Estimate that it concluded with "high confidence" that Iran had halted an effort to develop a nuclear weapon in fall 2003.
A senior U.S. intelligence official, who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly, said that U.S. intelligence agencies stuck by the NIE's judgment of "moderate confidence" that Iran hadn't reactivated the alleged effort.
In Vienna, Austria, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei told his board of governors Monday that the agency is continuing to look into allegations that Iraq conducted secret studies related to developing a nuclear warhead for a missile.
The allegations are based on documents provided to the agency by the United States and other IAEA members that purport to show that Iran conducted the research until March 2004. Iran has dismissed the documents as forgeries.
ElBaradei said the IAEA couldn't give the Iranian program a clean bill of health until Tehran had implemented "all the transparency measures required to clarify this cluster of allegations and questions."
Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton, who's battling Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, has been more nuanced in describing Iran's nuclear program, telling MSNBC on April 21 that Iran "appears" to have a "continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons."
© McClatchy Newspapers 2008
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

65 Comments so far
Show AllAnother reason why the iraq war was unbelievably stupid: SADDAM KEPT IRAN IN CHECK!!
I am as far as I know the only zionist here. And I am sure as hell not supporting any attack on iran. The iraq war has been disastrous for the US, AND for israel. Many of us realize this, and it's going to take a lot more then simpleminded "tough talk" on iran to impress us.
Obama is CLEARLY the best candidate to deal with the "threat" of iran. Not only will he talk to them (god only knows why we started this "no talking" policy) but he's already perceived as being more balanced then Bush was. In the middle east, perception is 99% of reality...
Samson, what you don't understand, or perhaps do understand, is that Obama's lack of experience is actually a positive! Any politician with "experience" these days, has merely had experience screwing this country over. Obama has yet to do this...
Dick Cheney is a "pussycat"? By comparison with whom? Attila the Hun?
For God's sake Obama, we don't ask for much in a president. Please be intelligent and kind. We haven't seen those qualities since Carter and God knows he wasn't perfect.
Yes lisa,
Some folks don't care about preventing more wars as much as voting for someone who will not have anymore to say about war than they do.
Thanks for this article.
A few points about Iran and a nuclear program, activists should be including these points in letters to editors and calls to representatives (202-224-3121).
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is NOT the dictator of Iran! He's not even the leader. The Supreme Leader of Iran is Ali Khamenei. He has veto power over Ahmadinejad on all things. Furthermore, Ahmadinejad makes no foreign policy decisions and Khamenei has issued a fatwa (religious edict) declaring that an Iranian nuclear weapons program is haram (forbidden, a sin). Many on the right claim that he's "just saying that" or that his statement was meant to pacify the US. This is not the case. These people are Shia- they believe that the Ayatollahs are holy- like the Pope.
Iran has the right to obtain materials for nuclear power under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). We, however, do not follow Article 6. So, for example, when McCain recently made his big announcement that he would seek to reduce our nuclear weapons arsenal- he was basically saying "I will stop breaking the law." According to Article 6, Section 2 of the US Constitution, all international treaties ratifies by the congress and signed by the president are "the supreme law of the land." This includes the Non-Proliferation Treaty (as well as the UN Charter, the UN Convention against Torture, etc.). Article 6 of the NPT states that we must be undergoing good faith efforts to reduce our weapons arsenal. And so Bush policies- such as nuclear weapons deals with India, new nuclear weapons testing and development- are all illegal, unconstitutional, and impeachable offenses for breaking "the supreme law of the land".
Obama is not stupid... this was a debating point with McCain.
Obama is not going to maintain that Iran is developing Nuke weapons without proof... this was a rhetorical debating point. Since nobody can prove if they have nukes, McCain gains debating points by saying they are making the weapons and that is why he won't talk to them.
So Obama retorts because you don't talk to them, they make the weapons and that is a good debating point to get to be president and talk to Iran and it leaves McCain with no retort because he can't even prove Iran has the weapons.
If Obama was the capped crusader, "Mr. Truth" at the cost of losing the election he could have said, 'No I don't know if they have nukes"..... but in "National Security" it looks stronger to side with the possibility of the bad than with the "I don't know".
McCain would simply win by repeating over and over "you are a fool , they do have them!" which when it comes to the fear of war, "I know" wins against the "I don't know" every time.
Result: McCain strong on Defense and Obama weak... but Obama knows the game and plays to win...thank God!
This was said in a debate, so pick on it as gospel if you wish.
Hmmmmmm.......
I hate to say it but....
that picture says it all
Obama is a war criminal and belong on death row
Yes, George Monbiot you succeeded going forward by virtue of upholding the highest standards of civil duty.
By comparison, Americans are delinquent, pretending to be making a difference with voting for and advocating war criminals for president.
If everyone reading this would use the link to what was the ultimate radio program yesterday (Tuesday, June 3rd)on WBAI by Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone on the fascist imperialism and violation of Nuremberg by propagandizing to wars of aggression by Senator Barak Obama as well as the others, making them all war criminals, and just be prosecuted as such.
Click-on: PROGRAM RADIO ARCHIVE at the top of left margin. Then you want to hear, the one dated 080603 'Remote Control: From 9/11 to an Assault on Iran'
The other programs are likewise the best on radio, at least in the US.
In 1989 I threaten to put former President Ronald Reagan under citizens arrest, as a convicted war criminal at-large. Recall the US was twice convicted by the World Court for war crimes in Nicaragua, and this was to take place a Loyola University in LA. Reagan canceled his planned appearance, to avert the embarrassment at least.
These politicians should be shouted down, vilified, and forced into hiding, they are premeditated, conspiring war criminals, and there apologist deserve no respect either.
NotGoingAlong | Homepage | 06.04.08 - 10:06 am | #
"... Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would invite a devastating nuclear counterstrike."
The number of countries how have nukes must go down, not up.
There are 2 problems with a nuclear Iran. (A scenario that so many of you pray for)
1. It will trigger a nuclear arms race in the middle east. Already 13 countries said they plan to use nuclear energy. (Egypt, Turkey, Saudi etc) with the capability to develop nukes.
2. The people who are running Iran are fanatic nut case, who believe that if they die in a holy war against the big or the small Satan, they'll go to heaven and get 72 virgins. You can't have MAD (Mutual Assurance Destruction) with someone who has the mindset of a suicide bomber. It is shameful to see people who call themselves "progressive", support giving the bomb to these lunatics, who call death to Israel and death to USA. This is a pre-text for a nuclear holocaust that will claims tens of millions (And not only in Israel).
I agree 100% with Obama . We must not risk a nuclear holocaust, a nuclear winter and regional / global radioactive fallout.
Doomsday Clock
============
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_clock
Lorax, I love your updated version. Let's try to teach it to W.
Obama doesn't help himself when he parrot's McWarcriminal's fairy tales about Iran.
...And remember, Friends, WHO talks about the environmental crisis??
What the hell is so great about Obama?
He has no guts or integrity, he certainly doesn't possess the saviness of Cynthia McKinney. Ditto for McDumbass and Hillary der Feminazi!