Tweet
“You are pointing the gun at Iran and say either negotiate or we will shoot. But you should know that pressure and negotiations are not compatible and our nation will not be intimidated by these threats. Talk is meaningful if it is based on goodwill, equal standing and when both sides do not want to apply tricks. Talk as a tactic, a gesture of superpower, is only a deceptive move.” -Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei
Iran’s Insistence That the U.S. Not “Point a Gun” at it is a Diplomatic Opening Not a Rejection…
Clearly such goodwill is in short supply between the United States and Iran…! I mean really, folks…? West to Tell Iran: Close Fordow, We’ll Ease the Sanctions…
Now, as FAIR’s Peter Hart asked today…
Are Iranian Magnets the New Aluminum Tubes?
…In the run up to the Iraq War, the New York Times (9/8/02) famously reported on an Iraqi scheme to procure special aluminum tubes that could only have one purpose: Iraq’s secret nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein was attempting to “buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes,” and the “diameter, thickness and other technical specifications of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq’s nuclear program.” The claims were false–Iraq, as it turned out, had no nuclear program–but still hugely influential.
Yesterday, on the front page of the Washington Post (2/14/13), reporter Joby Warrick has the scoop on what Iran is evidently up to:
Iran recently sought to acquire tens of thousands of highly specialized magnets used in centrifuge machines, according to experts and diplomats, a sign that the country may be planning a major expansion of its nuclear program that could shorten the path to an atomic weapons capability.
Purchase orders obtained by nuclear researchers show an attempt by Iranian agents to buy 100,000 of the ring-shaped magnets–which are banned from export to Iran under U.N. resolutions–from China about a year ago, those familiar with the effort said.
Warrick explains that this “has fueled Western concerns that Iran is planning a major expansion in its nuclear capacity that would allow it to make atomic weapons quickly if it chooses to do so.” That point was underscored by an anonymous source–identified as “a European diplomat with access to sensitive intelligence on Iran’s nuclear facilities, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.”
Now to be fair, Nima Shirazi, has been leading the charge for years…Iraq, Iran, Redlines and Headlines…
But, I digress… Peter Hart goes on to cite one of my all-time fave bloggers, b at MOA, where he’s screaming… Iran Buys Magnets That DO NOT FIT Its Centrifuges… Fancy that, eh…?
Honestly folks, wtf…?
The neocon-flagship Washington Post and its investigative reporter Joby Warrick are at it again, hyping an account about Iran’s nuclear program pushed by discredited nuclear expert David Albright, who famously gave cover for George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq a decade ago.
The latest Albright/Warrick alarm, which leads Thursday’s Washington Post, cites Iran’s alleged effort to place an Internet order for 100,000 ring-shaped magnets that would work in some of the country’s older centrifuges.
You have to read to the end of the long story to hear a less strident voice, saying that Iran had previously informed inspectors for the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency that it planned to build more of its old and clunkier centrifuges, which use this sort of magnet, and that the enrichment was for civilian energy, not a nuclear bomb…
And the WaPo even doubled down today, with their warmongering, in an ‘interview’ with the UN’s Ban Ki Moon… Iran could use U.N. talks as cover to build bomb, Ban Ki-moon says… Which is being echoed across the Pond…
Iran is taking same path to nuclear weapons as North Korea, says Ban Ki-Moon
Iran is using the same methods as North Korea to develop its nuclear capabilities, requiring “firm, decisive and effective” action by the Security Council, the United Nations secretary general has warned…
Now, as Rachel Maddow is set to unveil her new blockbuster expose on the Iraqi fiasco, ask yourself if we’ve learned anything…?
*gah*
74 Comments
Madness. But the American public will gladly swallow it all again–we know they’re capable of it.
This should not surprise anyone. Since the earliest days Americans have been swallowing what ever people feed them as long as it’s presented in a palatable manner.
After all they will willingly throw good money after bad for what ever is sold on an infomercial.
The iron ring matter has been erroneously inflated from an “enquiry” from an Iranian company discovered in 2011 by the anti-Iran Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), to a “purchase order. . . by Iranian agents” that is supposedly news in 2013 according to a Washington Post article that doesn’t name ISIS.
quotes follow–
ISIS:
–ISIS obtained an enquiry posted on a Chinese commercial web site in late 2011 that shows an effort by an Iranian company to buy 100,000 ring magnets.
–ISIS could not determine if Iran found a supplier willing to provide the ring magnets. Follow-up by interested suppliers is not readily apparent on these commercial web sites.
–Enquiry – In late 2011, a M. Tahmouresi of the Iranian trading company Jahan Tech Rooyan Pars Co. in Shiraz sent an enquiry to a Chinese commercial web site, 51buyers.com, requesting 100,000 ferrite barium strontium ring magnets.
–Conclusion – This large potential order by Iran in late 2011 . . .
Washington Post:
–Purchase orders obtained by nuclear researchers show an attempt by Iranian agents . .
–The revelation of the new orders . .
Magnets work so well on uncharged molecules. /s
There are three ways to enrich uranium:
1. Mass spectrometer on charged ions (volume is very low)
2. Gaseous diffusion of uncharged Uranium Hexaflouride
3. Electrolysis (I think)
Gaseous diffusion’s efficiency is improved by centrifuges (which is what to Iranians are reported to be using).
The South African’s at Pelindaba used Gaseous Diffusion.
For magnets to be effective, one needs charged Ions. There are none that I know of in Gaseous Diffusion (where the carrying fluid is helium).
Where are the magnets used in Gaseous Diffusion?
Even if the magnets are for uranium enrichment, where is the proof that the Iranians are planning to enrich over the reactor limit to the weapons grade enriched uranium?
If the US wants Iran to stop Iranian nuclear fuel processing, I’d suggest inviting the Iranians on a visit to Hanford, Chernobyl and Fukushima, with a discussion of consequences.
And a discussions with Israel about its threats to the region with its nuclear stockpile.
Finally, nuclear weapons maybe a threat; are they as much of a threat as Climate Change?
Really? They’re not even writing a new script, just changing a few words here and there? This is terrible news.
Recommended.
I know this is going to sound completely naive, but can’t the Iranians just make their own magnets? Is it necessary to go on the world market and telegraph to everyone that you’re in the market for magnets?
This does sound completely like 10 years ago, almost to the month, but considering how dumbed down this country has become you can’t blame the warmongers for trying the same script ten years on and expecting Americans to fall for it again. Geez, there’s even talk of a Bush running for president again. Why would anyone think we’ve gotten any smarter?
I assumed the magnets would allegedly be for the electric motors in the centrifuges.
The magnets used for electric motors, among other things.
Let’s do a little reality check here folks. Just for the sake of argument, assume that Iran builds a nuclear device. How are they going to know if their design and newly construct weapon works? Well, the usual method followed by those possessing such weapons was to test said device either in above or below ground tests. So, Iran takes their newly created wonder toy, the only one they currently have enough fissionable material to build, and test it. The device successfully detonates. They now have no more toy and have to refine more fissionable material to make another. Who knows how long that will take. What if it’s a dud? Back to the drawing board.
Assume they now have a second device. How are they going to deliver it and to where? Take another technological leap and assume they have a workable delivery system. Who are they going to attack? Israel is the only remotely realistic target. Just for fun, say Iran is stupid enough to take their one deliverable device and send Special Delivery to Tel Aviv. It detonates. They have shot their wad and are fresh out of nukes. Israel retaliates mercilessly with their won nuclear arsenal and leaves Tehran glowing in the dark.
Does anyone really think Iran is stupid enough to trigger that scenario? Even if they could?
Khamenei calls for destruction of all nuclear weapons across the world.
The war mongers always seem to have the upper hand. Maybe people just like war. We should all have party, a Mardi Gras, before we have the next one.
Why can’t we just have a sane foreign policy based on diplomacy, friendship and cooperation? Everything else we’ve tried has been disastrous.
War is the normal for empires.
Don’t forget that Iran is a stealth war against Russia & China. In many senses, like surrounding them, preventing certain pipeline routes from getting built, cutting off sources of energy from China, etc etc.
“Does anyone really think Iran is stupid enough to trigger that scenario?”
Apparently there are a few. Missing from your response is that an attack on Israel would very likely trigger a US response. The warheads on one OHIO class sub would reduce Iran to a parking lot in minutes.
Amid all the hand wringing over the possibility of an Iranian bomb I have yet to see a cogent legal justification for interfering with their sovereign right to arm and defend themselves.
How is it that the US gets to determine who can and cannot have a bomb?
Really, Arutz Sheva is going to dictate US policy? That’s a little stretch CTuttle. That is more likely the negotiating position that that faction of the Israeli government would like to push the US to adopt.
And really Joby Warrick?
Vague “nuclear researchers”? Sounds like a direct CIA disinformation feed to me. Joby Warrick, competing to be the new Judy Miller.
Peter Hart does a good job scoping out the “nuclear experts”: the Institute for Science and International Security. The ISIS report has this at a very crucial point:
The very information that would allow some independent nuclear scientists to verify the claim that these are contraband material are, er, redacted because it might show what tolerances these magnets are machined to.
ISIS, is “founded in 1993, the group is led by founder and former United Nations IAEA nuclear inspector David Albright. The ISIS is a fascinating read just to see how this sort of analysis is typically done. Albright, by the way, was a skeptic about the Iraqi aluminum tubes, skeptical not dismissive.
One other thing to note is that the report is of an inquiry, not a purchase. And Moon of Alabama hits at one of the key contradictions in the story.
My curiosity now is about who the ISIS is, and this is what I found. ISIS looks like a project that unites the Federation of American Scientists and the Nuclear Threat Institute. The Nuclear Threat Institute board is where the recognizable names are, and Sam Nunn is CEO:
Alexey Arbatov, Russian Academy of Sciences
Des Browne, UK House of Lords
Charles B. Curtis, Hogan and Hartson, Washington DC
Pete V. Domenici
Susan Eisenhower
Rolf Ekeus, Stockholm International Research Institute
Gen. Eugene E. Habiger (retired), former CinC Stratgeic Air Command
HRH Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan
Igor S. Ivanov, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation
Dr. Jeong H. Kim, President, Bell Labs
Piere Lellouche, Deputy of Paris, member of Foreign Affairs Committee of French National Assembly
Jessica T. Matthews, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Sam Nunn, Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Threat Institute
Ronald L. Olson, Munger, Tolles, & Olson LLP, Los Angeles
Hisashi Owada, Judge, International Court of Justice
William Perry, former US Secretary of Defense
Joan Rohlfing, President and COO, National Threat Institute
Nafis Sadik, Special Advisor to the United Nations Secretary General
Amartya Sen, Harvard University
Ted Turner
Shirley Williams, UK House of Lords
Fujia Yang, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Based on Moon of Alabama’s piece on Ban-ki Moon, I suspect that the Telegraph and the Washington Post “interviews” are from the same source. Secretary General Ban would be wise to state on camera whether he agrees with these reported statements just to dispel the possibility that those interested in war found reporters to ambush him.
Juan Cole argues that Iran seeks to position its nuclear weapons program exactly like Japan’s. Capability but not the weapons. And that the enrichment programs is (1) an assertion of Iranian sovereignty, a legitimate assertion in his view, and (2) enriching for stockpiling and for commercial uses.
IMO only domestic US politics prevents the US from negotiating an acceptable way out of this situation. It would be nice to see some anti-war activism now before it’s too late. That is, change the domestic politics around this issue.
The scenario you describe looks a lot like North Korea’s current logistical problem. And it’s aiming to have a delivery device that can reach the US, according to the fearmongers. Would that be Guam? Or Hawaii? Or Los Angeles? The fearmongers are reporting it like it would be Los Angeles.
North Korea faces Japan (long memories of WWII), South Korea, and China. China has nuclear weapons. South Korea and Japan have the capability to develop them but rely on the US’s nuclear deterrent. Don’t buy the “irrational Kims” story about North Korean motivations.
Book Salon up with Tom Wilber’s Under the Surface: Fracking, Fortune, and the Fate of the Marcellus Shale hosted by Steve Horn
As I’ve said before in commenting on FDL blogs, the very idea that people are supposed to be more worried about the nuclear weapon thar Iran might get than the ones Israel already has is absurd.
Well, when you put it like that……
What you say is true. I didn’t include it because it would be too many points in too many directions. The Fearmeisters don’t want people to think clearly and logically in this whole area.
It was a sick ‘Rocky and Bullwinkle’ moment when Nuttin-yahoo (misspelling intentional) went on camera with his stupid sizzling fuse/red line chart. What an ass.
Timing is everything , light up those Nuclear Roman Candles and climate change is an afterthought if a thought at all.
The money quote, ” The warheads on one OHIO class sub would reduce Iran to a parking lot in minutes “.
I’m sure Iran knows this. Do the American people know this, and do they care ?
Sick,twisted minds to even dream of this. But………… PEACE
Induction motors do not need magnets.
Most motors on the planet are induction motors.
I doubt it. Induction motors do not need magnets. See (24)
And bring on a nuclear winter. Which would not be a solution flor climate change.
If you believe the Muslims are annoyed at the US now, would you are to estimate their mood after Iran became the said parking lot?
More specifically, Iran is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is what opens it for the IAEA to conduct its analyses and negotiations.
Israel, India, and Pakistan never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and have few obligations. Other countries have obligations not to trade with Israel, India, and Pakistan in a way that proliferates nuclear weapons.
North Korea was a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty but withdrew after it tossed out the IAEA and its monitoring equipment. What triggered that was being included in Bush’s Axis of Evil speech.
Absolutely correct. We need to look at the scenario involved with any country, including Iran, actually “going nuclear.”
A nuclear weapon requires 90%+ highly enriched uranium (HEU). The time required to produce a sufficient quantity of highly-enriched uranium to fuel a weapon is called achieving nuclear “breakout” capability. Estimates of the time required to achieve “breakout” in Iran vary.
David Albright (an Iran critic) has said that breakout could be accomplished in Iran within three to six months. Of course Iran would have to expel the IAEA inspectors prior to any such breakout, then initiate the up to six month process, enriching uranium to weapons grade.
Then, presuming it had the designs ready, it would have to construct a nuclear bomb (or warhead) and test it (important). Then and only then could Iran go ahead with the construction of bombs or warheads. It is unrealistic to believe that the US and others would be sitting blithely by while all this were going on. It would not be a quick process.
So breakout’s not the end. A nuclear weapon cannot be made of gas. The gas must be converted to metal, a difficult and very dangerous process because of the high potential for a critical accident (like a nuclear reactor without shielding) that would kill anyone in the room or nearby.
Then an implosion warhead would have to be constructed. Warheads are complicated little machines. The entire detonation process happens within a tiny fraction of a second so the hard part is constructing a warhead with reliable separation capabilities throughout the various stages. Testing is mandatory to make sure the thing works.
Clinton Bastin, nuclear scientist: “Iran has no experience with this process, and no facilities to carry it out. Assembly of metal components with high explosives is even more dangerous, because a nuclear explosion would kill those within half a mile. Because of the difficulties, Iran would need 10 to 15 years to make a weapon, after diversion of low-enriched uranium, which would be immediately detected by IAEA inspectors.”
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Bastin_Interview.pdf
So any suggestion that Iran is “going nuclear” without anyone knowing it, without it taking a long time, without a complicated process including testing, without expelling the IAEA inspectors, is nuts.
Yes, ThD, that’s an excellent way to fill out the point. Would that more people took it seriously.
Iran could use plutonium from its Bushehr Reactor, rather than uranium, in a simple gun-type plutonium bomb, a so-called “dirty bomb.” But then the whole focus upon uranium and its enrichment is irrelevant.
Aloha, Tarheel and all, I’ve been busy and away from my computer today…! I would only add that Iran has, and is still under, the most intrusive IAEA inspection regime in the IAEA’s history…! Which included some on-site inspections of Parchin…! This is nothing but Iraq Redux…! 8-(
Oddly enough, Israel is a founding member of the IAEA (1957) and has participated in an IAEA nuclear missions to various countries. But nuclear state Israel refuses to sign the NPT and won’t allow the IAEA in its nation, despite Arab League pressure. The pressure comes because according to polls Arabs in the ME fear Israel and not Iran.
While Israel won’t allow a IAEA visit, that restriction hasn’t applied to the IAEA director general.
The Jerusalem Post, Aug 24, 2010
Yukia Amano, who late last year replaced Mohammed ElBaradei as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), arrived quietly in Israel on Monday for a two-day visit as the guest of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission.
Very interesting, donbacon. A getting to know you and getting to know what it would take to get you to sign the treaty visit? Or “consulting about Iran’s nuclear program”?
Dec 3, 2012
Sixty-seventh General Assembly
General Assembly Plenary
48th Meeting (AM)
Resolutions Aim to Neutralize Nuclear-Weapon Threat, Open Passage
To Multilateral Negotiations; Israel, Iran, Syria, South Africa Explain Votes
Calling on Israel to accede to the NPT without further delay — in another traditionally contested resolution — and on it not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce possession of those weapons, and place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope Agency safeguards, the Assembly welcomed the conclusions on the Middle East of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, according a resolution on risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, by a recorded vote of 174 in favour to 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States) with 6 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, India, Panama). (Annex XXXVII)
RT, Dec 5, 2012
Israel rejects UN call for nuclear transparency
Israel has rebuffed a UN call to adhere to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and open itself to international inspectors, calling the suggestion a “meaningless mechanical vote” of a body that “lost all its credibility regarding Israel.”
In a 174-6 vote, the United Nations General Assembly demanded in a non-binding call that Tel Aviv join the NPT “without further delay,” in an effort to create a legally binding nuclear-free Middle East.
Washington, Israel’s strongest ally, surprised no one by voting against the resolution – but did approve two paragraphs that were voted on separately, which called for universal adherence to the NPT and for all non-signatory governments to join.
By the way, removing UN inspectors besides being necessary with a nuclear breakout is also necessary for an attack upon the country being monitored. In 2003 Bush-43 warned the inspectors to leave Iraq before the bombs fell. So if the inspectors haven’t been warned, there will be no attack. (Also true if US warships, AKA sitting ducks, aren’t removed from the Persian Gulf.)
Synoia, you are trying to say that some motors don’t require permanent magnets like these. (All electric motors use interacting magnetic fields to generate mechanical energy; that’s their essence.) Fine, whatever.
The point is that the David Albright-type fear mongers clearly mean us to believe these magnets are intended to run the centrifuges, so your initial comment @4 was not to the point.
I don’t see how it matters much whether these magnets (if they exist) are meant for the Iranian centrifuges or not. The Iranian uranium enrichment program is an acknowledged fact (and perfectly legal aside from what U.S. bullying may achieve in the Security Council), so it will obviously need parts.
I would suggest people not put too much store in this magnet story being false, because (A) it may be true, and (B) even if it is true it doesn’t make the Iranian “threat” any less bogus. You don’t want to pitch the warmongers an easy one over the plate by making this perfectly plausible and unimportant magnet thing into a big deal, and then having it turn into a home run for the warmongers if it turns out to be true.
On the vote, I don’t see anyone but Harper, Israel, and the US in those six votes. Looks like Micronesia and the Marshall Islands have become the Ukraine and Byelorussia for the United States in the UN. I guess under the analogy Palau corresponds to Bulgaria. The abstentions are more interesting. India abstained as a non-signer but not wanting to stand with Israel. Pakistan did not abstain, through Islamic unity and in spite of being an “ally” with the US in the Afghanistan War.
I think I recall there was also a Wikileaks cable reporting that Amano had assured the U.S. that he would be a team player, in contrast to that incorrigible El Baradei who just didn’t know how to follow orders from the White House.
My sense was that the report played on two things: the number of magnets that the inquiry requested and the fact that those magnets are under UN sanction and that China should not be delivering them. Of course, the report admitted that there was no evidence of any transactions beyond this inquiry. So the charge left by the report is that Iran is deliberately trying to find ways of procuring sanctioned parts.
It didn’t matter to the UN sanctions that the parts otherwise would be legal under the Nonproliferation Treaty.
Also the US position that while the UNSC constitutes the “world community” blah blah the UNGA is essentially ‘chopped liver.’ This is interesting because the UNGA is the only universally representative body of the five principal organs of the United Nations, and if the “world community” is anything then it is the UNGA. But the world community (UNGA) dislikes Israel so the UNGA has “lost all its credibility regarding Israel.”
Disliking Israel is not credible, in fact it’s anti-semitic. Bad.
Is an enquiry a request?
Well dontcha know only the five great powers — US, UK, France, Russia, China (in that order) — represent the international community. The lottery folks on the UN Security Council–not so much /s
Good point. It asked about….a certain number of magnets of certain specifications. Point is, the inquiry itself is being held up as a an intention to get around sanctions.
They’re still legal under UN auspices, it’s not only ‘Dual-Use’ technology, but, getting to one of the main premise of my post, they’re not even machined to the right specs…!
Oct 16, 2009
P 161612Z OCT 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA — Agency charged with contacts to UN bodies based in the city. Provides mission statement, press releases and speeches.
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0209
INFO RUEHII/VIENNA IAEA POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
SUBJECT: IAEA: AMANO READY FOR PRIME TIME
¶1. (SBU) In several meetings with USG officials before he departed Vienna at the end of the IAEA General Conference, DG-designate Amano displayed remarkable congruence of views with us on conducting the Agency’s missions in safeguards verification, nuclear security, and promoting peaceful uses
of the atom as well as on reforming Agency management. Latest information from the Japanese Mission is that Amano will return to Vienna in late November and occupy an office in the IAEA during his final, intensive preparation to assume office December 1. This report responds directly to
instruction ref A. End Summary.
¶2. (C) In a meeting with Ambassador on the eve of the two-week Board of Governors (BoG) and General Conference (GC) marathon of mid-September, IAEA Director General-designate Yukiya Amano thanked the U.S. for having supported his candidacy and took pains to emphasize his support for U.S.
strategic objectives for the Agency. Amano reminded Ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.
¶3. (SBU) Amano shared with Ambassador Davies his public stance on the role of the IAEA and the Agency’s contribution to the global issues of proliferation, security, power, human health and water management. More candidly, Amano noted the importance of maintaining a certain “constructive ambiguity” about his plans, at least until he took over for DG ElBaradei in December. With a bow to the G-77, Amano felt obliged to emphasize the importance of “balance” regarding the Agency’s work in peaceful uses of nuclear technology. For staff morale reasons, Amano planned to work on improving the quality of management while publicly praising the current standards and commending staff members for their dedication.
¶4. (SBU) In the course of conversation, Amano was careful to highlight the April 12-13 Nuclear Security Summit in Washington as “the biggest event for me in the coming months.” . . . While acknowledging the increasing polarization between IAEA Member States, Amano was quick to point out areas of agreement, such as the need to upgrade the Seibersdorf laboratory complex, promote cancer therapy and safely introduce nuclear power. Amano promised to “treat
Iran with dignity,” but followed up firmly with the claim that he had been granted the post of Director General “to implement safeguards.” He emphasized that Iran had specific obligations which the IAEA would enforce; he did not see himself as an intermediary between Iran and the rest of the world.
¶6. (C) Subsequently, White House WMD Coordinator Gary Samore and NSC Senior Director Laura Holgate met with Amano on September 15 on the margins of the General Conference. . . .He affirmed it was most important for the IAEA to stick strictly to its verification responsibilities and not offer political
“proposals” or “negotiations.” Amano said that he would insist Iran to implement fully all Safeguards obligations and extend full cooperation with the IAEA, although he does not believe Iran will completely change its current position of stalemate.
¶9. (SBU) Comment: By the time he departed Vienna with the GC’s confirmation of his appointment, Amano appeared comfortable in his “Director General” shoes. He speaks with increasing confidence and clarity, having mastered his talking points and grown accustomed to his new title. . . . On a grander stage, Amano’s global political savvy was clearly in evidence, and his willingness to speak candidly with U.S. interlocutors on his
strategy and various balancing acts bodes well for our future relationship. For example, his description of President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit as the biggest event of his early tenure was a deliberate and gratifying gesture.
DAVIES
*heh* Ya would have to post the whole damn cable, eh don…! ;-)
Btw, I would posit that Amano’s invite to Tel Aviv in ’10 was to complete his ‘education’…!
I disagree. I doubt that anyone thinks that Iran is not going to try to “get around sanctions.” They’re basically political and baseless.
Warrick’s piece is to promote a fear of a scary major expansion in Iran’s nuclear program. (“Nuclear program” always being a purposely ambiguous phrase.)
Yup. I figured you had a word limit so I decided to push it. The Gettysburg Address in next, followed by the Proclamation by the Cabinet of Ministers of Queen Liliuokalani.
…Proclamation by the Cabinet of Ministers of Queen Liliuokalani…
A sad day for Hawai’i Nei…! 8-(
Clear on that one. Trying to paraphrase ISIS’s argument from the PDF.
Sorry you couldn’t be here earlier. How did that Mr. Zog’s Sex Wax hold up today? Would it help fit an oversize magnetic ring into a centrifuge?
I do regret that I didn’t link to this dynamic duo in my original post…! Iran’s Insistence That the U.S. Not “Point a Gun” at it is a Diplomatic Opening Not a Rejection…
It may not be a rejection, but it’s close. Ayatollah Khamenei has said that the United States will receive an appropriate response if it revises its illogical attitude.
Tehran Times
Probably John Kerry’s position on Iran has ‘matured’ now that he’s taking orders from Obama.
FT, June 10, 2009
US senator opens Iran nuclear debate
Anyone who claims that someone can ‘make nuclear weapons quickly’ even with if they had sufficient fissionable material doesn’t know Jack Shit about nuclear weapons design or construction.
This isn’t like buying a couple tons of fertilizer and mixing it with fuel oil and igniting it with a cell phone detonator. This is seriously tricky shit that even experienced experts have a tough time doing. Iran is clearly not in that class, not even close.
But to hear the Israelis and the fear-mongers tell it, the Iranians are busy assembling their Acme Nukes devices in secret. What are they going to strap it to, a ginormous bottle-rocket?
The US should recognize that sanctions on Iran have had the opposite effect than that intended. They have caused Iran to back out of the Additional Protocol, to abandon the Brazil-Turkey enrichment agreement, to initiate enrichment deep underground at Fordow, and to increase its uranium enrichment rate. Domestically they have strengthened the hard-line factions in Iran. And still the idiots in Washington want more sanctions.
*heh* I’m actually shocked that the Grey Lady reported Khamanei’s words fairly and accurately… Ayatollah Says Iran Will Control Nuclear Aims…
Have no fear… ‘Iranian nuke chief was in N. Korea for atomic test’
Apparently successful detonation indicates both countries on the cusp of ability to assemble atomic warhead, Sunday Times reports…
I said something similar on another site and got this response–
So my response was–
Thanks for doing the legwork.
“… ready for prime time”. That’s from the original cable, right? Unbelievable.
There are any number of ways the truth here may differ from what the pro-war noise machine will want us to believe:
* maybe this purchase would be allowed even under the Security Council resolutions.
* maybe these magnets wouldn’t even work in the centrifuges.
* maybe the WaPo report that Iran “sought to acquire” them is based on some trivial contact, or is just false.
* maybe even if the purchase went through, it would just keep the Iranian enrichment program where it is, and not constitute a major expansion.
* and so on …
Certainly there are any number of “experts” who will try to push news like this regardless of whether it is actually true or significant, so of course it should be vigorously challenged in every respect.
But still, this report is nothing like the pure fantasies of ten years ago. What I mean is, it could be true in some or all respects.
So I think it may be a tactical error to make the comparison to the Iraq WMD propaganda too readily, since that could give the pro-war faction an advantage if it turns out to have some factual basis, even though nothing in this report (even if accurate) actually validates the anti-Iran fearmongering.
Two peas in a pod.
Khamenei, 2013:
“In Iran’s nuclear issue, the discussion is not over nuclear weapons, but rather they want to deprive Iran of its absolute and inalienable right to nuclear enrichment and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. However, they will not succeed in containing the Iranian nation.”
Kerry, 2009:
““The Bush administration [argument of] no enrichment was ridiculous . . . because it seemed so unreasonable to people,” said Mr Kerry, citing Iran’s rights as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. “It was bombastic diplomacy. It was wasted energy. It sort of hardened the lines, if you will,” he added. “They have a right to peaceful nuclear power and to enrichment in that purpose.””
There’s no evidence of any purchase.
Guys and Gals… Some of my older stuff… The Road to Tyranny And Real Men go to Tehran…
Debunking The Latest IAEA Report on Iran…
Don’t Iraq Iran…
I could dig deeper in the vault, if ya want…! ;-)
* maybe the WaPo report that Iran “sought to acquire” them is based on some trivial contact…
Ding…! We have a winnah…! ;-)
Hence my use of the subjunctive mood : “would be”.
They’re gonna send terrorists carrying them in a suitcase, dontcha know? Members of Congress say this every other day.
Because sanctions worked so well for Iraq.
I suppose it depends on why you pursue a sanctions step on your way to war.
I think the logic of sanctions seductively suggests that you can put pressure on a regime without hurting anybody. It is not war, right?
After reflection on all the articles, I come to the conclusion that the ISIS report is some pre-negotiation chest-beating on the part of the US negotiators. At arms length and deniable. Get the US foreign policy wonks in a stir. Use the stir to indicate the concern in the US for Iranian behavior….Now can we talk.
….Now can we talk.
About what, Tarheel…? Any easing of the ‘economic sanctions’ is a complete non-starter in the US Senate…! 8-(
How about the weather to start. We must keep talking about this or ANYTHING!
We’re tired of endless war. How about appointing Bill Clinton as “special envoy” to the Middle East. He’s a great talker and seems to want to create an everlasting legacy for eternity.
Thank you for this post and comments. PEACE
There is a world of difference in assembling and detonating a nuclear device in a static test under controlled conditions and incorporating it into a deliverable weapon.
How to deliver? Long-ranger bomber? Lotsa luck getting anywhere close. Submarine? Even more unlikely. Missile? The most difficult yet. Suitcase? Don’t make me laugh.
The Orwellian U.S. classifies war-like sanctions as “diplomacy” as in: If Iran doesn’t respond to diplomacy, all options are on the table. [If Iranians don't cave to sanctions, we'll bomb the crap out of them.] It adheres to the State motto: Diplomacy In Action — promoting human rights and stability, etc. Not.
The basic rules are:
-If their lips are moving, they’re lying.
-If one assumes the opposite, one will usually be correct.
The latter rule achieved its ascendency during LBJ’s rule and has been true ever since.
Now, since it’s a established fact that sanctions on Iran have had the opposite effect than that intended, what we need is a descriptor for those that doggedly pursue obviously unproductive behavior.
Is there a psychologist in the house?
I believe the ISIS, Albright & Co., work directly for Israel and not for the U.S.