A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

[nitroglycol]

This talk of "Aeee!!! They'll have a nuke any minute!" is not a new phenomenon:

Seventeen years ago, in January 1992, the U.S. Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the House Republican Research Committee, asserted that there was a "98 percent certainty that Iran already had all (or virtually all) of the components required for two to three operational nuclear weapons.” That same month, Binyamin Netanyahu told the Knesset that "Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb… (The nuclear threat) must be uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.” In that same year, Robert Gates, then director of the CIA, asked, "Is [Iran’s nuclear program] a problem today?" He answered, "Probably not. But three, four, five years from now it could be a serious problem." Three years later, a senior Israeli official declared: "If Iran is not interrupted in this program by some foreign power, it will have the device in more or less five years."

Officially, both the United States and Israel now agree that Iran is unlikely to be able to produce a bomb until about 2013 or 2014—the same five-year window that was being predicted seventeen years ago in 1992.

Source.

[Diarmuid]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

This talk of "Aeee!!! They'll have a nuke any minute!" is not a new phenomenon:
Source.

All these reality checks are going to piss off starving steve and his gang with their mantra "give war a chance" - the cognotive dissonance, that the US government and their NATO allies behaves in international affairs as the good guy keeping the peace and in the domestic domain as chief financial and green terrorist.

From John Pilger for what I believe are some of the hard truths cutting through the rheoteric.

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger compares the current drum-beating for war against Iran, based on a fake "nuclear threat", with the manufacture of a sense of false crisis that led to invasion of Iraq and the deaths of 1.3 million people.

In 2001, the Observer in London published a series of reports that claimed an “Iraqi connection” to al-Qaeda, even describing the base in Iraq where the training of terrorists took place and a facility where anthrax was being manufactured as a weapon of mass destruction. It was all false. Supplied by US intelligence and Iraqi exiles, planted stories in the British and US media helped George Bush and Tony Blair to launch an illegal invasion which caused, according to the most recent study, 1.3 million deaths.

Something similar is happening over Iran: the same syncopation of government and media “revelations”, the same manufacture of a sense of crisis. “Showdown looms with Iran over secret nuclear plant”, declared the Guardian on 26 September. “Showdown” is the theme. High noon. The clock ticking. Good versus evil. Add a smooth new US president who has “put paid to the Bush years”. An immediate echo is the notorious Guardian front page of 22 May 2007: “Iran’s secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq”. Based on unsubstantiated claims by the Pentagon, the writer Simon Tisdall presented as fact an Iranian “plan” to wage war on, and defeat, US forces in Iraq by September of that year – a demonstrable falsehood for which there has been no retraction.

The official jargon for this kind of propaganda is “psy-ops”, the military term for psychological operations. In the Pentagon and Whitehall, it has become a critical component of a diplomatic and military campaign to blockade, isolate and weaken Iran by hyping its “nuclear threat”: a phrase now used incessantly by Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, and parroted by the BBC and other broadcasters as objective news. And it is fake.

On 16 September, Newsweek disclosed that the major US intelligence agencies had reported to the White House that Iran’s “nuclear status” had not changed since the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007, which stated with “high confidence” that Iran had halted in 2003 the programme it was alleged to have developed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has backed this, time and again.

The current propaganda-as-news derives from Obama’s announcement that the US is scrapping missiles stationed on Russia’s border. This serves to cover the fact that the number of US missile sites is actually expanding in Europe and the “redundant” missiles are being redeployed on ships. The game is to mollify Russia into joining, or not obstructing, the US campaign against Iran. “President Bush was right,” said Obama, “that Iran’s ballistic missile programme poses a significant threat [to Europe and the US].” That Iran would contemplate a suicidal attack on the US is preposterous. The threat, as ever, is one-way, with the world’s superpower virtually ensconced on Iran’s borders.

Iran’s crime is its independence. Having thrown out America’s favourite tyrant, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran remains the only resource-rich Muslim state beyond US control. As only Israel has a “right to exist”in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic. This will allow Israel to divide and dominate the region on Washington’s behalf, undeterred by a confident neighbour. If any country in the world has been handed urgent cause to develop a nuclear “deterrence”, it is Iran.

As one of the original signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has been a consistent advocate of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. In contrast, Israel has never agreed to an IAEA inspection, and its nuclear weapons plant at Dimona remains an open secret. Armed with as many as 200 active nuclear warheads, Israel “deplores” UN resolutions calling on it to sign the NPT, just as it deplored the recent UN report charging it with crimes against humanity in Gaza, just as it maintains a world record for violations of international law. It gets away with this because great power grants it immunity.

Obama’s “showdown” with Iran has another agenda. On both sides of the Atlantic the media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war. The US/Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal says 500,000 troops will be required in Afghanistan over five years, according to America’s NBC. The goal is control of the “strategic prize” of the gas and oilfields of the Caspian Sea, central Asia, the Gulf and Iran – in other words, Eurasia. But the war is opposed by 69 per cent of the British public, 57 per cent of the US public and almost every other human being. Convincing “us” that Iran is the new demon will not be easy. McChrystal’s spurious claim that Iran “is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups” is as desperate as Brown’s pathetic echo of “a line in the sand”.

During the Bush years, according to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a military coup took place in the US, and the Pentagon is now ascendant in every area of American foreign policy. A measure of its control is the number of wars of aggression being waged simultaneously and the adoption of a “first-strike” doctrine that has lowered the threshold on nuclear weapons, together with the blurring of the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons.

All this mocks Obama’s media rhetoric about “a world without nuclear weapons”. In fact, he is the Pentagon’s most important acquisition. His acquiescence with its demand that he keep on Bush’s secretary of “defence” and arch war-maker, Robert Gates, is unique in US history. He has proved his worth with escalated wars from south Asia to the Horn of Africa. Like Bush's America, Obama's America is run by some very dangerous people. We have a right to be warned. When will those paid to keep the record straight do their job?

[Master Shake]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

Was France, a nation much more friendly to Iran than the US or Israel, leading the charge in 1992?

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ip...ar_16206.shtml

[Slimprofits]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

Was France, a nation much more friendly to Iran than the US or Israel, leading the charge in 1992?

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ip...ar_16206.shtml

No, I don't think so.

IRAN'S NUCLEAR DRIVE
The Jerusalem Report - Jerusalem
Author: Leslie Susser
Date: Mar 26, 1992

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jrep/acc...E&pqatl=google

In their nuclear drive, the Iranians have been helped by China, Pakistan, India, France, Germany, Argentina, Brazil and Russia.

[..]

A December 1991 compensation agreement with French firms Prematom and Eurodif for work abandoned in the late 70s gives Iran a 10 percent share in the companies, and, according to reports, quantities of enriched uranium which they are stockpiling. Israeli, German and American intelligence estimates concur: Iran will have the Bomb within a decade.

[Starving Steve]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

All these reality checks are going to piss off starving steve and his gang with their mantra "give war a chance" - the cognotive dissonance, that the US government and their NATO allies behaves in international affairs as the good guy keeping the peace and in the domestic domain as chief financial and green terrorist.

From John Pilger for what I believe are some of the hard truths cutting through the rheoteric.

I would reply that the Shah was much too nice, too tolerant, and too humanitarian to the whole bunch of Islamo-fascists trying to cause trouble for him in the 1970s. Instead of just cropping their ears ( the Shah's usual punishment for trouble-makers ) I would have hung the whole bunch of the trouble-makers.

And these rebellious trouble-makers were invited to the University of California at Berkeley to speak. The Peace Movement at Berkeley, myself included, gave them the microphone to speak on the Sproul Hall steps. (I remember it well.)

Some of these devils, these Islamo-fascists now running Iran, were educated at Berkeley. ( This is quite a story! ) And instead of returning to Iran to help establish democracy and promote Western values (of free speech, limited government, separation of government from religion, tolerance, etc.) they toppled the Shah and went on to establish an Islamic Republic. Iran was set-back 1000 years or more. They then took the entire staff of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran hostage in 1978. This violated every principle of International Law, and this was an act of war against the U.S.

For 31 years, the U.S. and its allies have tried to appease this illegal regime in Iran. And here we are now: watching Iranian Sunborn missiles be tested, with atomic bomb development sites buried in mountains, and a with a promise by Arminishod to launch nuclear war against Isreal as soon as possible.

Shame on the every one of the appeasers of Iran, including Jimmy Carter. Shame on the BBC for being pro-regime in Iran--- so much so that protesters in Tehran held-up signs condemning the BBC for its bias. And shame on the United Nations for allowing this appeasement of Iran to happen and allowing a member state, Isreal, to be threatened by nuclear war.

Those protestors who held-up signs against BBC's coverage in Tehran? They were arrested by the Islamic Republic and executed a month ago in August 2009. The details of the executions will never be known until the Arminishod regime is brought to justice.

[Spartacus]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

didn't you get the memo?

It's morally right to supply weapons to Saddam to kill millions of Iranians, and egg him on to do it, while working behind the scenes to prevent Iran getting the weapons to defend themselves

It's morally right to demonize Iran at every opportunity - you may need to blow them up someday to distract the population

It's morally right, after orchestrating the deaths of millions and millions of Iranians, to criticize Iran for seeking the weapons to defend itself

And of course, it's morally repugnant for Iran to want to defend itself, to prevent millions from being ground into cannon dust and pink mist again

Get with the program
(NOTE for those who like to read much more into the text than is written, and then argue against that straw man, this does NOT mean I support the existing Iranian politicos)

[jdv]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

It would be stupid for Iran NOT to develop nuclear weapons. Sadly, nuclear weapons make the world treat you differently. And their regional influence will only increase.

Look at Pakistan, Isreal and India. How much consequences have they paid for having nukes? And how differently does the rest of the world treat them in disputes?

Look at North Korea. How agressively do we go after them now? And NK looks 100x worse a regime than Iran. But they have nukes so we have to appease them. Or invade them.

Not that I want Iran to have nukes. But the fact that people thinks it's clear evidence they are nefarious and diabolical are ignoring how it changes things for the countries that have them. Especially for a country that the US has been demonizing for a long time...

[skyson]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

I would reply that the Shah was much too nice, too tolerant, and too humanitarian to the whole bunch of Islamo-fascists trying to cause trouble for him in the 1970s. Instead of just cropping their ears ( the Shah's usual punishment for trouble-makers ) I would have hung the whole bunch of the trouble-makers.

And these rebellious trouble-makers were invited to the University of California at Berkeley to speak. The Peace Movement at Berkeley, myself included, gave them the microphone to speak on the Sproul Hall steps. (I remember it well.)

Some of these devils, these Islamo-fascists now running Iran, were educated at Berkeley. ( This is quite a story! ) And instead of returning to Iran to help establish democracy and promote Western values (of free speech, limited government, separation of government from religion, tolerance, etc.) they toppled the Shah and went on to establish an Islamic Republic. Iran was set-back 1000 years or more. They then took the entire staff of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran hostage in 1978. This violated every principle of International Law, and this was an act of war against the U.S.

For 31 years, the U.S. and its allies have tried to appease this illegal regime in Iran. And here we are now: watching Iranian Sunborn missiles be tested, with atomic bomb development sites buried in mountains, and a with a promise by Arminishod to launch nuclear war against Isreal as soon as possible.

Shame on the every one of the appeasers of Iran, including Jimmy Carter. Shame on the BBC for being pro-regime in Iran--- so much so that protesters in Tehran held-up signs condemning the BBC for its bias. And shame on the United Nations for allowing this appeasement of Iran to happen and allowing a member state, Isreal, to be threatened by nuclear war.

Those protestors who held-up signs against BBC's coverage in Tehran? They were arrested by the Islamic Republic and executed a month ago in August 2009. The details of the executions will never be known until the Arminishod regime is brought to justice.

Steve,

you need to read Dr. Engdahle's "Century of War: Anglo-American's Oil Politics and New World Order". Shah was toppled by the CIA itself, not by those Islamo-fascists in Berkeley you hosted(they might be part of the plan?), because he advocated the peaceful utilization of nuclear energy, and hence threatened the Anglo-American oil interest.

the Anglo-American empire will fight to their death for the control of world resources, no matter who will be the president or prime minister. The real Axis of Evil - British, US, and Israel.

[Diarmuid]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

Western values (of free speech, limited government, separation of government from religion, tolerance, etc.)

Ha Ha Ha Ha - you must need to reduce your cool aid consumption from 10 gallons daily to say 5 Gallons - going complete cold turkey might kill you.

[Starving Steve]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

It would be stupid for Iran NOT to develop nuclear weapons. Sadly, nuclear weapons make the world treat you differently. And their regional influence will only increase.

Look at Pakistan, Isreal and India. How much consequences have they paid for having nukes? And how differently does the rest of the world treat them in disputes?

Look at North Korea. How agressively do we go after them now? And NK looks 100x worse a regime than Iran. But they have nukes so we have to appease them. Or invade them.

Not that I want Iran to have nukes. But the fact that people thinks it's clear evidence they are nefarious and diabolical are ignoring how it changes things for the countries that have them. Especially for a country that the US has been demonizing for a long time...

Have you ever once heard Pakistan, India, Isreal, or even North Korea ever say that they would nuke another member of the United Nations? That is the difference. That is where Iran crossed the line. Iran said to a conference of Islamic nations that they would use atomic weapons against Isreal, not in self-defence, but to wipe Isreal off the map in a first-strike, surprise attack.

That is the difference, loud and clear: The development of atomic weaponry to threaten another member state of the United Nations is unprecedented and can not be tolerated.

[medved]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

didn't you get the memo?

It's morally right to supply weapons to Saddam to kill millions of Iranians, and egg him on to do it, while working behind the scenes to prevent Iran getting the weapons to defend themselves

It's morally right to demonize Iran at every opportunity - you may need to blow them up someday to distract the population

It's morally right, after orchestrating the deaths of millions and millions of Iranians, to criticize Iran for seeking the weapons to defend itself

Was it moral to supply weapons to Stalin to kill millions of Germans (also Russians, Ukrainians, Tartars, Lithuanians etc.)?

Was it moral to demonize the USSR at every opportunity? After all they did have free healthcare. :rolleyes:

Was it moral after helping Stalin to survive and kill yet more people to criticize USSR for seeking the weapons to defend itself?

And of course, it's morally repugnant for Iran to want to defend itself, to prevent millions from being ground into cannon dust and pink mist again.

Defend itself against whom? Let's say, US. How many millions did US kill in Iraq? I would guess, much less, than Saddam.

Let's get real and not throw slogans left and right. Mr. Starving has a good point based on his personal experience.

US is pursuing the course of realpolitik, be it Bush or Obama. In reality you never have a choice between the good guy and the bad guy. It is always SOB 1 and SOB 2.

The realpolitik in the gulf is Carter doctrine with all of its political/military consequences. US is far from perfect, but please don’t compare it to Iran.

[MulaMan]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

[quote=Starving Steve;126335]That is where Iran crossed the line. Iran said to a conference of Islamic nations that they would use atomic weapons against Isreal, not in self-defence, but to wipe Isreal off the map in a first-strike, surprise attack[quote]

The Iranian President called for "zionist regime" change in Israel, just like GW Bush did before the US wiped Iraq off the face of the map.

Complete fake news put out by your "free" government. Please stop watching Fox & CNBC News and reading Republican blogs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...jad_and_Israel


The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly, as "be eliminated from the pages of history."^[12]
According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."^[13]
On June 2, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this line of reasoning.^[14]
Sources within the Iranian government have also denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat.^[15][16][17] On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel "wiped off the map," saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime," he said
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly, as "be eliminated from the pages of history."^[12]
According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."^[13]
On June 2, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this line of reasoning.^[14]
Sources within the Iranian government have also denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat.^[15][16][17] On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel "wiped off the map," saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime," he said

[Mn_Mark]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

(NOTE for those who like to read much more into the text than is written, and then argue against that straw man, this does NOT mean I support the existing Iranian politicos)

No, you don't support them. You just hate the US, that's all.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

It would be stupid for Iran NOT to develop nuclear weapons. Sadly, nuclear weapons make the world treat you differently. And their regional influence will only increase.

Look at Pakistan, Isreal and India. How much consequences have they paid for having nukes? And how differently does the rest of the world treat them in disputes?

Look at North Korea. How agressively do we go after them now? And NK looks 100x worse a regime than Iran. But they have nukes so we have to appease them. Or invade them.

Not that I want Iran to have nukes. But the fact that people thinks it's clear evidence they are nefarious and diabolical are ignoring how it changes things for the countries that have them. Especially for a country that the US has been demonizing for a long time...

North Korea is not run by religious fanatics who believe that if they can start a worldwide conflagration, the "hidden mahdi" or whatever they call him will come out of a well and lead Islam to rule the world.

The US has been "demonizing" them, as you put it, because they deserve demonizing. They actively supply weapons and money to terrorists, they invaded our embassy in Tehran, took our diplomatic personnel hostage and held them for over a year, and their nutjob leader regularly threatens to wipe Israel off the map.

[Starving Steve]

Re: A reality check regarding Iran's nuclear capability

We have a term in English for the kind of threats and kind of double-meaning speech that Arminishod makes: we would say that he is "weasel" meaning that he is sly like a fox.

Listening to an interview between Arminishod and Charlie Rose on television, Arminishod did not even take responsibility for the shooting of the young woman we all saw die on the streets of Tehran. She bled to death on worldwide television.

According to Mr. Arminishod, this girl was killed by one of her fellow protestors, shot by a small calibre weapon at close range. So according to Mr. Arminishod, this girl was sacraficed to stage a propaganda event on worldwide television.

This is how Arminishod talks. This is how he operates. He takes responsibility for nothing. So, in common English, we would call him, "sly", "foxy", "a weasel", even "a Hitler".

A motivated and sly weasel, with a 10th Century paradigm, operating outside the rule of International Law, with blood on his streets, and with an atomic bomb arsenal and Sunborn offensive missiles is, "a new Hitler".