Posts Tagged ‘Iran’
Just in case Bush and his Israeli followers start attacking Iran in the name of preemptively preventing a nuclear war, we should turn them in the direction of this NIE study (that’s National Intelligence Estimate, for the uninitiated). It’s not the full study, but it has all of the important conclusions.
The study says that:
We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were
working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.• We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (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.)• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons
program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop
nuclear weapons.• We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently
have a nuclear weapon.
• Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined
to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment
that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure
suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged
previously…• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be
technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this
is very unlikely.• We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of
producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.
(INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of
foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the
possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.D. Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could
be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example,
Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high
confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development
projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would
also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.E. We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing
to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its
options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt
it to restart the program.
Now, while this is only an estimate, the assumptions based therein are surely enough for us, the public, to seriously question any assertion (or military action derived from said assertion) that Iran has nuclear weapons, for now. Now we have the power to cry fowl when the government tells us that Iran has the a-bomb, unlike the situation in Iraq.
Iran is certainly an interesting player on the world stage – but it doesn’t have the nuke yet.
And, after all, who are we to decide who gets and who doesn’t get the A-bomb? Isn’t it in Iran’s best interest to acquire the A-bomb for purely defensive purposes? Yes, I know their regime is crazy, but hasn’t it occurred to anyone that the a-bomb is the ultimate deterrent; no one would be crazy enough to attack them once they got a nuke under their control. As paradoxical as it may sound, they’re willing to risk invasion from Israel and the United States in order to acquire a bomb that would prevent these countries from invading them at all, assuming that they’re actually pursuing a nuke in the first place.
What do you think about Iran?
Share It
 del.icio.us |
 Digg |
 Facebook |
 Google |
 Live Spaces |
 MySpace |
 Newsvine |
 Reddit |
 StumbleUpon |
 Technorati |
 Twitter |
 Yahoo! My Web |
Well, it’s official: according the MSNBC, all US forces will be out of Iraq by the time 2012 rolls around.
(from the BBC)
Under the deal, US troops will withdraw from the streets of Iraqi towns next year, leaving Iraq by the end of 2011.
The decision will need to go before Iraq’s parliament for a final vote.
America’s National Security Council welcomed the cabinet’s vote, saying it was “an important and positive step” towards stability and security.
The pact is necessary to determine the role of US military forces in Iraq after their UN mandate expires on 31 December 2008.
In October, Iraq sent a new round of suggested changes to the draft Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa), to which the US responded.
Washington had previously said the pact was “final” and could not be amended.
The UK government, which has 4,100 troops in Iraq, is waiting for the US-Iraqi pact to be approved so they can use it as a template for their own bi-lateral deal.
Well, we had to take out our troops sometime, and 2012 seems reasonable, though I’d prefer that we pulled them out earlier. Still, I think this gives the Iraqi government more than enough time to clean up its act and prepare its troops to actually defend against terrorism.
At the same time, I’m not so sure I like this, considering that we have been using Iraq as a launching pad for attacks against Syria, in addition to using our bases in Afghanistan to conduct strikes in Pakistan. Keeping troops in Iraq for any longer amount of time means that it’s possible that we can conduct cross-border strikes into Syria again, and possibly Iran.
There’s no question that we need our troops out, but it looks like Iraq is an eternal damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don’t situation. The truth is, we really don’t know what kind of hell we’ll unleash once all of our troops leave the country, and we won’t know for sure until January 1st, 2012.
Share It
| del.icio.us |
Digg |
Facebook |
Google |
| Live Spaces |
MySpace |
Newsvine |
Reddit |
| StumbleUpon |
Technorati |
Twitter |
Yahoo! My Web |
Whatever happened to “An enemy of an enemy is a friend”?
According to the BBC,, Al-Jazeera has acquired a tape featuring Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in celebration of their 7th anniversary of the 9/11 bombings (why seven anyways? why not five or ten?). Said the BBC Article:
In the 90-minute tape obtained by Qatar’s al-Jazeera TV, deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri denounces Iran and the “Crusader” threat to Islam.
The latest tape refers to last month’s war over South Ossetia between Russia and Georgia as well as the resignation of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, suggesting it was made as recently as mid-August.
Zawahiri is shown accusing Iran of “co-operating with the Americans in occupying Iran and Afghanistan”.
The deputy leader of al-Qaeda, which draws its support from Sunni Muslims, also condemns Shia Muslims for not calling for a holy war in Iraq against Western forces there.
Are you kidding me? What about the 9/11 Commission’s report that Iran had ties to al-Qaeda? As recently as last year, the New York Post reported that Iran still had ties to al-Qaeda, so what gives?
Perhaps… Perhaps Iran isn’t an enemy — our government has fabricated things before, especially concerning Iran. Like the whole Ahmadinejad threatening to wipe Israel off the map deal. Not true. Still, though, John McCain and his ilk like to make their stupid ditties about “Bomb Eye-RAN” and how Iran is most definitely evil and so forth. But, perhaps, if the kind people from al-Qaeda (who we KNOW are our enemy) tell us that Iran has betrayed them and “supported the US”, we know that Iran isn’t what the hawkish government officials would like you to think.
I think this should let us know for sure that Iran’s not an enemy. However… the media continues to misquote and misjudge Iran and the Middle East as a whole. After all, we’ve labeled HAMAS a terrorist organization when they were actually elected head of the Palestinian parliament. So much for us loving democracy.
[Stay tuned for a massive Project Atlas announcement tomorrow!]
The 59 Second Minute 