Neocons and Neolibs tell us IRan is building a bomb...but no evidence of that

[TM7]

Detailed and referenced article countering neocon-neolib war rhetoric....no evidence of illegal bomb building--just more perpetual war
fyi....TM7
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
.Contrary to Widespread Claims, There Is NO EVIDENCE that Iran Is Building a Nuclear Weapon
.
Posted on January 25, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog

Iran Is NOT Building a Nuclear Bomb
Earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said:

"Are they[the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon?
No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us.Director of National Intelligence James Clapper confirmed in a Senate hearing – following the release of the classified National Intelligence Estimate in 2011 – that he has a “high level of confidence” that Iran “has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program.”
.

Mohamed ElBaradei – who spent more than a decade as the director of the IAEA – said that he had not “seen a shred of evidence” that Iran was pursuing the bomb.

Six former ambassadors to Iran within the last decade say that there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and that Iran is complying with international law.

The International Atomic Energy Agency states:

**All nuclear material in the facility remains under the Agency’s containment and surveillance.

In other words, all nuclear fuel is accounted for and is being controlled and monitored by the international agency tasked with nuclear non-proliferation.

What about Iran’s enriching uranium to 20%?
 The IAEA considers 20 percent enriched uranium to be low-enriched uranium and “a fully adequate isotopic barrier” to weaponization.   In other words, 20% is well within the legal guidelines for developing a program of nuclear energy.
Indeed, under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is acting in a wholly legal fashion. As the six former ambassadors cited above note:

In terms of international law, the position of Europe and the United States may be less assured than is generally believed.
***
Most experts, even in Israel, view Iran as striving to become a  “threshold country”, technically able to produce a nuclear weapon but  abstaining from doing so for now. Again, nothing in international law  forbids this ambition. Several other countries are close to, or have  already reached, such a threshold, with a commitment not to acquire  nuclear weapons. Nobody seems to bother them.

Nuclear physicist Yousaf Butt – former fellow in the Committee on International Security and Arms Control at the National Academy of Sciences, scientific consultant for the Federation of American Scientists, and frequent contributor to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists  –  points out:

"Iran is not doing anything that violates its legal right to develop nuclear technology. Under the NPT, it is not illegal for a member state to have a nuclear weapons

capability — or a “nuclear option.”
If a nation has a fully developed civilian nuclear sector — which the NPT actually encourages — it, by default, already has a fairly solid nuclear weapons capability. For example, like Iran, Argentina, Brazil, and Japan also maintain a “nuclear option” — they, too, could break out of the NPT and make a nuclear device in a few months, if not less. And like Iran, Argentina and Brazil also do not permit full “Additional Protocol” IAEA inspections.
 
 The real legal red line, specified in the IAEA’s “Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements,” is the diversion of nuclear materials to a weapons program. However, multiple experts and official reports have affirmed over the years that they have no evidence that any such program exists.But didn’t the latest IAEA report say that Iran was trying to build a bomb?
Not really. 
The latest IAEA report states that Iran’s research program into nuclear weapons:

Was stopped rather  abruptly pursuant to a ‘halt order’ instruction issued in late 2003.

While there are some allegations about documents found on a laptop, those documents apparently came from a terrorist group with zero credibility.
In any event, the current accusations against Iran by hawks pushing for an attack cannot be taken in a vacuum:

• The people pushing for war against Iran are the same neocons who pushed for war against Iraq based on false statements that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.  See this, this and this

• The U.S. has been claiming for more than 30 years that Iran was on the verge of nuclear capability (and the U.S. apparently helped fund the Iranian nuclear program)

• War against Iran was planned at least 20 years ago

• Other recent claims against Iran have largely been debunked

• The CIA admits  that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage  bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its  democratically-elected prime minister***

• Pulitzer-prize winning  investigative reporter Seymour Hersh says that the Bush administration  (and especially Dick Cheney) helped to fund terrorist groups within Iran (see confirming articles here and here)

• The New York Times, Washington Post  and others are reporting, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani,  former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, former national security  adviser Fran Townsend and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey – who  all said that the terrorists were going to get us if we didn’t jettison  the liberties granted under the Bill of Rights – are now supporting  terrorists in Iran

• The war against Iran has already begun. See this, this and this

But Didn’t Iran Threaten to Wipe Israel Off the Map?
It has been widely report that Iran’s president threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”.  However, numerous experts in Iranian language and culture say that this was a mistranslation.
I speak no Farsi, know nothing about Iranian culture or idioms, and don’t like Iran’s president or hardline Mullahs. So I can’t weigh in one way or the other.
However, Iran has not attacked another country in hundreds of years.  (In the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was the initial aggressor.)  As such, it is unlikely to start one now.There’s a Simple Solution to the Escalating TensionsThere is a simple solution to the escalating rumors of war.  Specifically, a fuel swap would end the tensions.  As Butt writes:

"[A commentator] proposes a fuel swap to resolve the nuclear standoff: Iran would curtail its enrichment in exchange for foreign-supplied 20 percent enriched uranium fuel plates for its research reactor.  In fact, in 2010, just such a deal was brokered by Turkey and Brazil but the United States could not take “yes” for an answer. Though Iran has just accepted an offer of new talks brokered by Turkey, new sanctions passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama have made it even more unlikely that the two sides can reach an agreement."
.
.Even If Iran Were Trying to Build a Bomb, An Attack Would Only Accelerate the Process

Even if Iran were trying to build a bomb, American military and intelligence chiefs say that attacking Iran would only speed up its development of nuclear weapons, empower its hardliners, and undermine the chance for democratic reform.
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.Contrary to Widespread Claims, There Is NO EVIDENCE that Iran Is Building a Nuclear WeaponPosted on January 25, 2012 by WashingtonsBlogIran Is NOT Building a Nuclear Bomb
Earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said:

Are they

[the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us.Director of National Intelligence James Clapper confirmed in a Senate hearing – following the release of the classified National Intelligence Estimate in 2011 – that he has a “high level of confidence” that Iran “has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program.”
Mohamed ElBaradei – who spent more than a decade as the director of the IAEA – said that he had not “seen a shred of evidence” that Iran was pursuing the bomb.
Six former ambassadors to Iran within the last decade say that there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and that Iran is complying with international law.

The International Atomic Energy Agency states:

All nuclear material in the facility remains under the Agency’s containment and surveillance.

In other words, all nuclear fuel is accounted for and is being controlled and monitored by the international agency tasked with nuclear non-proliferation.
What about Iran’s enriching uranium to 20%?  The IAEA considers 20 percent enriched uranium to be low-enriched uranium and “a fully adequate isotopic barrier” to weaponization.   In other words, 20% is well within the legal guidelines for developing a program of nuclear energy.
Indeed, under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is acting in a wholly legal fashion. As the six former ambassadors cited above note:

In terms of international law, the position of Europe and the United States may be less assured than is generally believed.
***
Most experts, even in Israel, view Iran as striving to become a  “threshold country”, technically able to produce a nuclear weapon but  abstaining from doing so for now. Again, nothing in international law  forbids this ambition. Several other countries are close to, or have  already reached, such a threshold, with a commitment not to acquire  nuclear weapons. Nobody seems to bother them.

Nuclear physicist Yousaf Butt – former fellow in the Committee on International Security and Arms Control at the National Academy of Sciences, scientific consultant for the Federation of American Scientists, and frequent contributor to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists  –  points out:

Iran is not doing anything that violates its legal right to develop nuclear technology. Under the NPT, it is not illegal for a member state to have a nuclear weapons

capability — or a “nuclear option.” If a nation has a fully developed civilian nuclear sector — which the NPT actually encourages — it, by default, already has a fairly solid nuclear weapons capability. For example, like Iran, Argentina, Brazil, and Japan also maintain a “nuclear option” — they, too, could break out of the NPT and make a nuclear device in a few months, if not less. And like Iran, Argentina and Brazil also do not permit full “Additional Protocol” IAEA inspections. 
 The real legal red line, specified in the IAEA’s “Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements,” is the diversion of nuclear materials to a weapons program. However, multiple experts and official reports have affirmed over the years that they have no evidence that any such program exists.But didn’t the latest IAEA report say that Iran was trying to build a bomb?
Not really.  The latest IAEA report states that Iran’s research program into nuclear weapons:

Was stopped rather  abruptly pursuant to a ‘halt order’ instruction issued in late 2003.

While there are some allegations about documents found on a laptop, those documents apparently came from a terrorist group with zero credibility.
In any event, the current accusations against Iran by hawks pushing for an attack cannot be taken in a vacuum:

• The people pushing for war against Iran are the same neocons who pushed for war against Iraq based on false statements that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.  See this, this and this

• The U.S. has been claiming for more than 30 years that Iran was on the verge of nuclear capability (and the U.S. apparently helped fund the Iranian nuclear program)

• War against Iran was planned at least 20 years ago

• Other recent claims against Iran have largely been debunked

• The CIA admits  that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage  bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its  democratically-elected prime minister

• Pulitzer-prize winning  investigative reporter Seymour Hersh says that the Bush administration  (and especially Dick Cheney) helped to fund terrorist groups within Iran (see confirming articles here and here)

• The New York Times, Washington Post  and others are reporting, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani,  former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, former national security  adviser Fran Townsend and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey – who  all said that the terrorists were going to get us if we didn’t jettison  the liberties granted under the Bill of Rights – are now supporting  terrorists in Iran

• The war against Iran has already begun. See this, this and this

But Didn’t Iran Threaten to Wipe Israel Off the Map?
It has been widely report that Iran’s president threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”.  However, numerous experts in Iranian language and culture say that this was a mistranslation.
I speak no Farsi, know nothing about Iranian culture or idioms, and don’t like Iran’s president or hardline Mullahs. So I can’t weigh in one way or the other.
However, Iran has not attacked another country in hundreds of years.  (In the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was the initial aggressor.)  As such, it is unlikely to start one now.There’s a Simple Solution to the Escalating TensionsThere is a simple solution to the escalating rumors of war.  Specifically, a fuel swap would end the tensions.  As Butt writes:
>[A commentator] proposes a fuel swap to resolve the nuclear standoff: Iran would curtail its enrichment in exchange for foreign-supplied 20 percent enriched uranium fuel plates for its research reactor.  In fact, in 2010, just such a deal was brokered by Turkey and Brazil but the United States could not take “yes” for an answer. Though Iran has just accepted an offer of new talks brokered by Turkey, new sanctions passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama have made it even more unlikely that the two sides can reach an agreement. Even If Iran Were Trying to Build a Bomb, An Attack Would Only Accelerate the Process
Even if Iran were trying to build a bomb, American military and intelligence chiefs say that attacking Iran would only speed up its development of nuclear weapons, empower its hardliners, and undermine the chance for democratic reform.

[Nuke41]

The IAEA says it best on their web site and documents:

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2012/2012priorities.html

The IAEA Chief said his key priority for 2012 will be “"to try to make progress towards restoring international confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program." "This is the most important of the major safeguards issues on our agenda".

The last IAEA report on Iran was November 2011:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf

Probably the best quotes;

“Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency has regularly received new information”.

“While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities”.
 
In short; the IAEA doesnt know what Iran is doing, but they want to find out.  If Iran wants to show they have a peaceful nuclear program then show everything to the inspectors.
 
As for Iran’s misinterpreted statements about Israel, that is easy to fix.  Iran can hold a press conference stating they haven’t threatened Israel and that they have no animosity toward Israel.

[Cuts Crooked]

As for Iran’s misinterpreted statements about Israel, that is easy to fix.  Iran can hold a press conference stating they haven’t threatened Israel and that they have no animosity toward Israel.

And we would believe that............right?

[BUGEYE]

Plus, all this time, they have been working on a delivery system for their "peaceful" nukes.

[powderman]

As for Iran’s misinterpreted statements about Israel, that is easy to fix.  Iran can hold a press conference stating they haven’t threatened Israel and that they have no animosity toward Israel.

And we would believe that............right?

 
 
CUTS CROOKED. I hope you don't mean that you think the muslims would lie do you?? Surely not. Shame shame. POWDERMAN. 

[Nuke41]

 Come on TM7, you started a post that had promise as a valid topic in the political blog, after a single challenge you are starting to drive your own post off the rails.  How about trying something different for a change?  How about you post something and then promote a discussion on it?  After others make a point or challenge you then if you have  something to add, clarify or provide an answer back to someone else’s post make it, and make it with substance that comes from the mainstream.  Don’t use conspiracy theory web sites and others opinions as supporting proof of your statement, stick with things that are mainstream.  Don’t answer a challenge with a counter challenge that is irrelevant or off topic to the post; make your case as eloquently and as factually as you possible can with the most credible material you can locate.  If you can promote a discussion on the political blog that is an even exchange of ideas and doesn’t stray needlessly off into the conspiracy theory world you might actually enjoy it and at the same time contribute something to the discourse on the political blog.
 
OK, let’s pretend your second post on this topic didn’t happen.  As I’ve pointed out, the IAEA’s own documents don’t seem to back up your OP that Iran’s nuclear program is of no concern.  What further evidence can you present to make your claim?  Similarly, if the Iranian threats to destroy Israel are all a misunderstanding based on improper translation that should be really able to prove and should have produced information on the mainstream media and with governments that support Iran, give us something more to back that up.

[BUGEYE]

nuke41, in another thread similar to this one, you mentioned two words that aptly describe what's going on with this op.  they were" divert and dominate".

[powderman]

BUGEYE. YEP. Good post Sir. If certain people  don't like the truth then simply change the subject, and continue to post drivel and blather til everybody forgets what the subject was about. Ya gotta admit, it works for some folks, but others are seeing the truth. POWDERMAN. 

[nw_hunter]

Come on TM7, you started a post that had promise as a valid topic in the political blog, after a single challenge you are starting to drive your own post off the rails.  How about trying something different for a change?  How about you post something and then promote a discussion on it?  After others make a point or challenge you then if you have  something to add, clarify or provide an answer back to someone else’s post make it, and make it with substance that comes from the mainstream.  Don’t use conspiracy theory web sites and others opinions as supporting proof of your statement, stick with things that are mainstream.  Don’t answer a challenge with a counter challenge that is irrelevant or off topic to the post; make your case as eloquently and as factually as you possible can with the most credible material you can locate.  If you can promote a discussion on the political blog that is an even exchange of ideas and doesn’t stray needlessly off into the conspiracy theory world you might actually enjoy it and at the same time contribute something to the discourse on the political blog.
 
OK, let’s pretend your second post on this topic didn’t happen.  As I’ve pointed out, the IAEA’s own documents don’t seem to back up your OP that Iran’s nuclear program is of no concern.  What further evidence can you present to make your claim?  Similarly, if the Iranian threats to destroy Israel are all a misunderstanding based on improper translation that should be really able to prove and should have produced information on the mainstream media and with governments that support Iran, give us something more to back that up.

 
Nuke41, I appreciate your concern for proper posting on the GB forums, but the Adm. has taken care of this little thing for us.I refer you to  GBO Terms of Use........READ IT!!!!