About the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program

There was one thing in President Obama’s farewell address the other night that puzzled me. From the New York Times’s transcript:

If I had told you eight years ago that America would reverse a great recession, reboot our auto industry, and unleash the longest stretch of job creation in our history — if I had told you that we would open up a new chapter with the Cuban people, shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program without firing a shot, take out the mastermind of 9-11 — if I had told you that we would win marriage equality and secure the right to health insurance for another 20 million of our fellow citizens — if I had told you all that, you might have said our sights were set a little too high.

But that’s what we did. That’s what you did.

The emphasis is mine. What did President Obama mean by that? Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program. They said that and our intelligence services confirmed it on multiple occasions. The inspectors did not find evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Did he mean that his efforts had prevented Iran from starting a nuclear weapons development program, at least for the next several years? I hope that’s what he meant.

12 comments… add one
  • Andy Link

    Actually, the IC said Iran had a nuclear weapons program which they “halted” in 2003 but were “keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons” and that halting the program is “inherently reversible.” The main purpose of the Iran agreement was to provide the necessary access to Iran’s program to monitor it and provide warning in case Iran tries to restart its program which would also serve to deter Iran from trying.

  • Jan Link

    The reason behind Obama/Kerry’s Iran deal was to slow down Iran’s ability to make a nuclear bomb. What our government knew or didn’t know, regarding how far along Iran was in this project, hasn’t been clear. The same goes for the perimeters initially established as oversight for such a deal to happen, as they have not only been unclear but also have evolved with far less scrutiny and oversight than was originally sought from the Iranians and promised to the American people.

    Nonetheless, the important aspect of this Obama/Kerry deal was the actual signing, not the real time enforcement of it. Like so many of Obama’s “achievements,” they seem driven more on legacy-building than on a close attention to workable details, long range problem solving, and/or legislative efforts promoting bipartisan ideas and cooperation. He has essentially been a Lone Ranger president, both in how he conducted the formation of policies, as well as how he perceives them to be working. Consequently, his speeches are often deprived of accuracy, resorting instead to a casualness of wording reflecting (to a keen observer) the loosely woven, opaque nature of what he proudly has articulated as his “accomplishments.”

    So, the questionable status, of the referenced Iran’s nuclear weapons program, IMO, is just another remnant of a fuzzy recollection as to what “was” and what “was not” the actual results of the deal made with Iran.

    Obama’s farewell speech , though, certainly created a La La Land image for his fans, didn’t it!

  • michael reynolds Link

    I hope the Trumpskis are ready for yet another mid-air somersault, because my guess is the new regime won’t change anything about the Iran deal.

  • the new regime won’t change anything about the Iran deal

    I think that’s probably right. Fortunately for Trump, I doubt that his supporters really care much about the Iran deal.

  • Gray Shambler Link

    I myself don’t believe the Iranian leadership is crazy, same can’t be said about North Korea. Something will need to be done, we cannot ignore this threat, but for now , I DO trust Trumps instincts, come what may.

  • Jan Link

    I don’t think Trump will tear up the Iran deal. However, there will be much more scrutiny of how the Iranians are following through on their end, unlike what is being done under the current regime. And, if, and most probably when, they violate some facet of it there will be repercussions, such as more sanctions or…?

  • steve Link

    What makes you think the current admin is not monitoring Iran? They set it up, along with the other members of the agreement. Any evidence?

    Steve

  • Guarneri Link

    “Any evidence?”

    A former British intelligence officer told the CIA, who couldn’t confirm it, but in their judgment -or a hunch – believe it. CNN is running with the story tomorrow.

  • Jan Link

    Evidence? Buying armaments from Russia or testing balastic missile launches which were both violations of the accord that was struct between involved nations. Then there were rumors of uranium enrichment. Oh yes, there were secret amendments to the deal never offered to Congress for their scrutiny.

  • Zachriel Link

    Jan: Buying armaments from Russia or testing balastic missile launches which were both violations of the accord that was struct between involved nations.

    Neither are prohibited by the agreement.

    Jan: Then there were rumors of uranium enrichment.

    It’s not a rumor, but allowed under the agreement. Iran is limited in the quality and quantity of uranium enrichment.

    In any case, atomic bombs are 1940s technology. It’s only a matter of time before any nation that wants the atomic bomb will be able to develop the technology. Iran’s main concern is deterrence. Major political forces in the U.S. have openly advocated invasion of Iran on many occasions. While the Iranians have said they don’t want the bomb, having break-out capability (the ability to produce a bomb) gives them some measure of deterrence without actually having to produce one. The U.S. and its allies, on the other hand, want that break-out capability to be long enough that they would have warning before Iran could produce an atomic weapon. The agreement satisfied both sides in this regard.

  • Jan Link

    Zachriel, it depends on what you read, regarding if they were technically not violations, or if they violated the spirit and bottom line of the agreement – which was to temper the nuclear zeal and terrorist inclinations of Iran.

  • Zachriel Link

    Jan: it depends on what you read, regarding if they were technically not violations, or if they violated the spirit and bottom line of the agreement –

    The agreement specifically allows for uranium enrichment, but is limited in quality and quantity.

    Jan: if they violated the spirit and bottom line of the agreement – which was to temper the nuclear zeal and terrorist inclinations of Iran.

    The agreement had specific requirements for all parties. Not sure what you are trying to argue.

Leave a Comment