I can get a little more worked up about this:
The International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iran had expanded its nuclear programme, defying UN demands for it to be suspended. Hundreds of uranium-spinning centrifuges in an underground hall are expected to be increased to thousands by May when Iran moves to “industrial-scale productionâ€.
Once more: I oppose bombing or invading Iran (neither would eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapons development program and either would produce further incentives for such a program and other nastiness on Iran’s part), I support sanctions (particularly those that affect the regime most directly), I believe we should support dissident groups within Iran (such as they are), and I believe we should be engaging in covert activity within Iran (although, unlike Glenn Reynolds, I’m more in favor of action against infrastructure than against persons). I also am not opposed to direct talks.
I think that the fears of preventive attack by the Bush Administration against Iran are overblown. I also think that whatever the Administration did or did not do in the months preceding the invasion of Iraq isn’t really very relevant to what it should or should not do with respect to Iran.
Update
I think that this is just about right:
UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 22 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran on Thursday that it will face further punishment and isolation if it forges ahead with efforts to develop a uranium-enrichment program, but she said the United States and other powers are prepared to restart talks aimed at ending the standoff if Iran suspends its most controversial nuclear activities.
The remarks came hours after the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a report saying Iran has defied yet another U.N. Security Council demand to halt its most sensitive nuclear activities. R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, plans to travel to London on Monday to press Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany to slap additional penalties on Iran.
“We have the common goal to encourage Iran back to the bargaining table,” Rice said after a meeting in Berlin with her counterparts from Russia, Germany and the European Union. “The hope is that the sanctions show the Iranians the isolation that they are enduring, that isolation is likely to increase over time and that it is time to take a different course.”
Would someone please point me to something somewhere that will convince me that Iran actually has a covert nuclear weapons development program? Thanks!
This post of mine will point you to other, prior posts of mine with lots of evidence. My assessment is that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Iran is conducting such a program (or, at the very least, wants everyone, including the Iranian people, to think they are). As to whether it will convince you, on that I have no idea. With a sufficiently high level of skepticism one would be hard put to prove that we have a nuclear weapons development program: all those budget items and agencies could be an elaborate charade.
I don’t intend by this to demean your question: it’s a perfectly legitimate one.
The lack of iron-clad, undeniable evidence is one of the many things that makes me oppose invasion or bombing.  I also have a pre-disposition against the use of force as I think any sensible person should. However, I don’t think that iron-clad, undeniable evidence is the proper standard of proof for sanctions and other actions short of invasion or bombing. For those I think that a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient and, as I said, IMO that’s where the preponderance of the evidence leads you.
Dear LaurenceB and Dave,
You might want to have a look at this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2019519,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
and listen to what Scott Ritter and Saymour Hersh have to say:
http://nucleariran.blogspot.com/2007/02/target-iran-scott-ritter-and-s-hersh.html
So far, there has not been any verifiable evidence that Iran is pursuing a weapons program, as IAEA has reported in its latest report (only few days ago). Unfortunately, at this point in time, I can only link to its Persian translation, as it is not yet available on IAEA website:
http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=452284
Evidences that are usually referred to these days, are mostly based on speculation, prediction of future intentions of a government, or subjective “preponderance”.
Those are not convincing at all. The only thing that they lead to, is WAR.
There is nothing conclusive on an Iranian nuclear weapons program, but the circumstantial evidence is compelling. A quick rundown:
1. Their enrichment program was completely clandestine until it was exposed by Libya’s revelations about the AQ Khan network. Why is it necessary for a civilian program to be clandestine – especially to the point of burying and hiding facilities (Natanz) at great expense?
2. The IAEA discovered a report on the shaping of uranium metal hemispheres and the Iranians have not explained how they got the paper or why they have it and have yet to provide a copy to the IAEA. The only purpose for such information is a uranium implosion device. This is one of the outstanding issues that’s been in every IAEA report for several years now: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/IAEAreport22Feb07.pdf (That’s the english version of the report Amir). Read the other outstanding issues Iran hasn’t answered, such as plutonium separation experiments – another weapons-related technology.
3. Iran is building the IR-40 “research” reactor at Arak. The Iranian’s claim its for research and isotope production, but virtually every reactor in the world of similar design has been used for plutonium production. It is, in fact, tailor made for that purpose. Iran could produce the isotopes it needs with smaller reactors could not easily product plutonium. See more here: http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1300/technical-cooperation-for-arak
4. The Iranian nuclear program does not make economic sense even though economics and energy independence are primary reasons Iran says it needs nuclear power. For more see this summary of a doe report (the full report is not yet available because the authors are trying to publish it): http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2006/iran-060421-usia02.htm
5. The link above also discusses Iranian uranium reserves, which are quite limited. The Iranians are spending billions on enrichment when it will run out of reserves in a decade or two and be force to import ore anyway. Why not just import fuel – it’s cheaper and easier and Iran would not have to deal with long-term waste storage.
6. Iran did not declare a research center at Lavizan was nuclear-related under its safeguards agreement. When it was revealed that nuclear-related material was shipped to the site and the IAEA asked to inspect it, all the buildings were razed and the ground was scrapped clean. The Iranian explanation for this was that the site was bought by the city to turn into a park. See more here including satellite images: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/lavizanshian.html
7. The IAEA, under the safeguards agreement with Iran, is only allowed to inspect “declared” sites. A declared site is one that Iran declares is part of its nuclear program. The problem with this kind of arrangement is obvious. Obviously, Iran only declared sites it couldn’t reasonable argue were not nuclear-related, and sites that appeared obviously civilian in nature. This is a major of weakness of the NPT – it relies on nations honestly declaring all their nuclear facilities. For example, there is another undeclared site at Parchin (in addition to Lavizan) the IAEA suspects is nuclear related, but the Iranians have refused to grant access: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/parchin.html
8. Iran is building an extensive enrichment infrastructure, but so far only one reactor is being built to service that infrastructure. Iran has claimed they plan to build 20 or more reactors, but have not yet contracted for them much less broken ground. A typical nuclear reactor takes a decade or more to build. So Iran will have all this enrichment capability and only one reactor for it for at least the next 10-20 years. Considering how dire the Iranians claim their energy needs are, why aren’t they building the reactors first, fueling them with cheap uranium purchased on the open market, and then developing an enrichment infrastructure to support them? Putting the cart before the horse in my view. Meanwhile, Iran’s petroleum sector infrastructure continues to deteriorate. It’s ironic that Iran uses this deterioration and the effects its having on domestic energy supply as proof that it needs nuclear energy.
There are other issues as well, but I think those listed above are most of the major ones. Does it add up to conclusive evidence? No. Every point listed above could have an innocuous explanation, or be countered with appropriate evidence, but the Iranians have consistently been deceptive about both their intent and their actual programs. Iran could dispel much of the evidence above if it were false, yet it either chooses not to or cannot. Considering all the talk of attack by the US or Israel (talk that I think is overblown), one would think Iran would want to increase transparency to erase any doubts, and therefore any justification for an attack.
Now, one thing I’ve said repeatedly is that the evidence fits another possibility – in my view better than an actual Iranian weapons program. It’s my belief that Iran intends to develop the technology and capability to make a nuclear device without actually doing so. Although a parallel clandestine bomb-making program is a possibility (and Amir, the IAEA will never find it because it is not allowed to conduct snap inspections on any suspect site that is not declared), I think it’s more likely Iran has a small R&D program on weapon design (and therefore easily hidden) and will only weaponize if it feels it is necessary. Basically, I think they want to be where Japan and Brasil are – have an advanced civilian program that will allow them to build a bomb in less than a year.
And we can make comparisons to Iraq here as well. We now know that Iraq, or rather, Saddam, wanted his neighbors, primarily the Iranians and Israelis, to believe he still had WMD as a deterrent. So he was at the same time trying to convince one audience he had WMD while at the same time trying to convince another he did not. His calculus was that since he destroyed all his weapons, the UN would not find enough evidence to justify an attack. Of course, he miscalculated. We must be cautious that Iran is not similarly miscalculating. Saddam never really believed the US would invade until literally the eve of the war – he expected France and Russia, whom he had bribed handsomely, to prevent a war. Similarly, Iran believes the US will not and cannot effectively attack it.
Things to ponder.
For those who haven’t yet, please read the Iraqi Perspectives Project on the Iraq war. ( http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ipp.pdf ). It’s an excellent analysis of the regime’s decision-making process based on interviews and captured documents. Much of it relates to the military portion of the campaign, but there are important WMD bits in there (Chemical Ali was interviewed, for example) and along with the Duefler report provides a convincing explanation of why and how both the US and Iraq miscalculated. The lessons are very important considering the current crisis with Iran, where misunderstandings and miscalculations also abound.
Wow, I didn’t realize that comment would be so long. Sometimes when I really get going I get into a groove and that’s what happens.
Why not give Iran what it wants; a nuclear weapon?
Of course, this doesn’t mean that they get it quite the way they want. And it doesn’t mean that they’ll have it very long, either.
Convenient place for the leaders of Iran, though.
The apocalyptic legend of the twelfth imam, and ahmadinejad’s boasting about annhilating Israel suggests that Sunni muslims are not the only “death cult” muslims. Shia muslims clearly love death on a large scale–what could be better than nuclear weapons for such?
Iranian religious leaders have said that allah made the nuclear bomb for it to be used–to allah’s glory. The evidence points to a fierce power hunger on the part of Iran’s leaders, with nuclear weapons development as the most likely path to that kind of power.
The muslim world is corrupt to the core, and violent beyond the belief of most westerners. Palestinian ways of raising their children to love death and killing is nothing less than child abuse that approaches homicidal intensity. Hezbollah is almost as bad as the Palestinians in this regard.
Oh my.
Well, first, Dave my dear amigo, I can think of nothing worse for the Iranian opposition than to have the Americans back it.
If you want to help them, stay the bloody fuck away, and strike a reasonable pose (not from your domestic navel gazing hysteric paranioa POV I would add).
As to the comment supra:
“The apocalyptic legend of the twelfth imam, and ahmadinejad’s boasting about annhilating Israel suggests that Sunni muslims are not the only “death cult†muslims. Shia muslims clearly love death on a large scale–what could be better than nuclear weapons for such?”
Death cult?
The Sunni and the Shia are no more a “death cult” than the martyrdom loving Xians of the past and likely the future.
Ahmadinjad is not the fellow who can pull the trigger so to speak, the theocrats are the ones. And the Mullahs have demonstrated over the past 20 odd years a highly developed sense of self-interest in a very secular and worldly sense.
“Iranian religious leaders have said that allah made the nuclear bomb for it to be used–to allah’s glory. The evidence points to a fierce power hunger on the part of Iran’s leaders, with nuclear weapons development as the most likely path to that kind of power.”
I am amused by the monolingual whankers who write this sort of tripe, as if they had the vaguest clue as to what they’re talking about, other than blindly parroting their betters who manipulate them with overcharged, poorly supported rhetoric.
“The muslim world is corrupt to the core, and violent beyond the belief of most westerners. ”
Kha.
So says the bigots, oddly if one steps back, the US looks rather violant, but one’s own faults are always explainable, eh what?
Tiresome shrieking bigotry.
The Sunni and the Shia are no more a “death cult†than the martyrdom loving Xians of the past and likely the future.
I am amused by the maroonic whankers who write this sort of tripe, as if they had the vaguest clue as to what they’re talking about. If ever there were a death cult, it is the Sunni and Shia muslims–a throwback to the stone age barbarity of the desert moon god.
What is even more amusing than mindless raging bigots such as Lounsbury, is anyone who takes the twit the least bit seriously.
😉
A sincere “Thank You” to Dave, Amir and Andy. I appreciate your help.
Amazing. Mainline branches of Islam can be called mere “death cults,”
in polite America. But let anyone infer that traditional Judaism is inherently ethnic supremacist, racist or parasitical as related to the Diaspora/host
relationship and they become political outcasts.
But reading noble Jewish historians like Israel Shahak, author of “Jewish History ,Jewish Religion” on the subject might help smooth out the dichotomy.
Dear Andy,
Thanks for your very interesting comment on the issue. Frankly, this is the first time that I am getting an answer that is based on facts, and not “quotes out of context”.
Your comment is logical, comprehensive, and as you put it, long. Therefore, I’ll write my response in my own blog:
http://nucleariran.blogspot.com/2007/02/insightful-comment-by-andy.html
thanks,
Amir