Note to Mainstream Media: Your being set up to get bamboozled...again.

[Cypress]

Mainstream Media being Bamboozled Again….Iran


You may not know it yet. But the Bush Admin and their warmongering allies, have been marketing overblown and misleading stories about Iran’s nuclear program. As with Iraq, the media has done a piss poor job of separating the wheat from the chaff:

NeoCon position: “Iran is flagrantly violating the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, and is building nuclear weapons, as we speak! If we don’t bomb them soon, it may be too late!”

Facts:

1) Iran has a right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes, under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

2) IAEA inspectors are in Iran right now. A misperception exists that there are no international inspectors in Iran, and Iran is just operating outside of all international scrutiny.

3) Uranium enrichment is an expensive, and extremely technologically challenging engineering problem.

4) Iran has been doing nuclear research for 40 years, and has not yet demonstrated that is can reliably enrich uranium fuel on an industrial capacity.

5) Weapons grade uranium takes further enrichment, beyond the enrichment required for nuclear fuel. All intelligence estimates are that Iran is 5-10 years away from developing the technology to enrich weapons grade uranium. And just having the capacity to enrich weapons grade uranium does not mean they’ll have the capacity to deliver a nuclear weapon through ballistic missile or bomb technology.

6) It can be credibly argued that Iran may need civilian nuclear energy in the decades to come. Unlike Saudi Arabia, they do not appear to have a vast, nearly inexhaustible domestic supply of petroleum.

7) Iran would be very unlikely to even be able to enrich weapons grade uranium or plutonium, without kicking out the IAEA inspectors. A weapons-grade nuclear program would require building or modifying large industrial infrastructure. And diverting large amounts of plutonium from spent fuel rods, would be easily noticed by IAEA.

8) The real sticking issue is NOT that there’s concrete evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. And the issue is NOT whether Iran can even have a nuclear program: Every sovereign state on the planet that signs the NPT, is legally justified in developing civilian nuclear technology. These, are in fact, the outstanding issues.

a) The U.S. and other countries simply don’t want Iran to have a viable nuclear enrichment industry – even if it’s only for legal, civilian purposes. Once a country learns how to reliably enrich uranium, a point of no return is passed. At that point, theoretically they have the knowledge on how to enrich uranium or plutonium to weapons grade quality. That doesn’t mean they’ll have a bomb or a nuke. In fact, nations with civilian nuclear energy are not prohibited by The Non-Proliferation Treaty, from making and holding weapons-grade material, provided these activities are exclusively— and in good faith—for peaceful purposes and the material is under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards

b) There are disputes with the IAEA about the scope and nature of nuclear inspections. Methodological disputes, in short. Iran has not satisfactorily demonstrated to IAEA that its nuclear research and enrichment program are strictly for civilian purposes. This doesn’t mean they have a bomb. Or are even working on one. It means there are unresolved questions, and technical disputes on the nature and scope of the inspection. IAEA and the UN have charged Iran with insufficient transparency and cooperation pertaining to inspections.

To Summarize:

-Iran has a legal right under NPT to enrich nuclear fuel for a civilian program.

-US and others simply don’t want Iran to learn how to enrich civilian grade uranium.

-The current impasse is over transparency and cooperation in the IAEA inspection regime – no evidence has been proffered that Iran has – or is anywhere close – to having a viable nuclear weapon program


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/02/pdf/iran_report.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Safeguards/es2006.html#iran

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/sc8792.doc.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/w...tml?ex=1182484800&en=1d2b877f7ea1c2a4&ei=5070

As I tried to tell NeoCons with regard to Iraq in 2002: Inadequate transparency and cooperation does not automatically mean Iran has a nuke, or is building a nuclear bomb. It means what it means. Don’t jump to any conclusions.

Do I think that Iran probably as a nuclear weapons research program? Yes. They’ve probably been researching nuclear weapons technology since the 1970s, when the Shah was there. We didn’t complain then, cause it was the Shah.

But, doing academic “research” is Not the same as actually having the technology to reliably enrich uranium to weapons grade, let alone have a ballistic or bomb technology to even deliver it.


The issue at this point is containement. After 40 years of research, the Iranians are not going to unlearn what they know. They probably are going to have viable technology in the next 5-10 years, to enrich civilian-grade uranium. The key at this point, is to contain them. Keep them in the NPT treaty, keep IAEA inspectors in the country, and work diplomatically.

 

[uscitizen]

ahh but those feamongering tales of mushroom cluods work so well to manipulate the masses.

 

[doniston]

Mainstream Media being Bamboozled Again….Iran


You may not know it yet. But the Bush Admin and their warmongering allies, have been marketing overblown and misleading stories about Iran’s nuclear program. As with Iraq, the media has done a piss poor job of separating the wheat from the chaff:

NeoCon position: “Iran is flagrantly violating the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, and is building nuclear weapons, as we speak! If we don’t bomb them soon, it may be too late!”




As I tried to tell NeoCons with regard to Iraq in 2002: Inadequate transparency and cooperation does not automatically mean Iran has a nuke, or is building a nuclear bomb. It means what it means. Don’t jump to any conclusions.

Do I think that Iran probably as a nuclear weapons research program? Yes. They’ve probably been researching nuclear weapons technology since the 1970s, when the Shah was there. We didn’t complain then, cause it was the Shah.

But, doing academic “research” is Not the same as actually having the technology to reliably enrich uranium to weapons grade, let alone have a ballistic or bomb technology to even deliver it.


The issue at this point is containement. After 40 years of research, the Iranians are not going to unlearn what they know. They probably are going to have viable technology in the next 5-10 years, to enrich civilian-grade uranium. The key at this point, is to contain them. Keep them in the NPT treaty, keep IAEA inspectors in the country, and work diplomatically.

Actually I agree with you But you left out one all important fact.

They likely have full fledged Nukes right now, which they could have gotten from several Soviet sources. all it takes is money.

"OR NOT"

They may actually be smart enough to know they don't really need them, but only the threat that they might have --to acheive the same effect.

 

[Cancel7]

Here's a really interesting opinion piece on what would happen after we strike Iran. And there's going to be alot of civilian causalties.

"Let us suppose that the Bush-Cheney administration answers the neocons' prayer and does indeed bomb Iran sometime soon. The plan apparently involves more than the destruction of nuclear facilities, replicating Israel's attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. (That attack, by the way was condemned by the whole world, including a furious President Ronald Reagan). It includes an all-out assault on the Iranian political and religious leadership. Government buildings and officials' residences will be targeted, guaranteeing collateral damage. Since Iran is a highly complex society, and its government widely unpopular, there may well be some local support for a "shock and awe" campaign. We know that the administration has cultivated ties with the Mujahadeen Khalq (even though they remain on the State Department's terrorist list) and the Pakistan-based Balochi separatist group Jundallah (the Party of God). These among other organizations will get their marching orders amid the "creative chaos" produced by the attack. There can be no large deployment of U.S. troops in Iran, unless they evacuate from Afghanistan and Iraq which is unlikely"

continued at:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6025

 

[Cypress]

Actually I agree with you But you left out one all important fact.

They likely have full fledged Nukes right now, which they could have gotten from several Soviet sources. all it takes is money.

"OR NOT"

They may actually be smart enough to know they don't really need them, but only the threat that they might have --to acheive the same effect.

Very perceptive.

That's actually partly why I wrote this: to clarify in my own mind what exactly the Bush admin and wingnut radio is misleading/exaggerating about - and to understant that the end game is probably that Iran will be able to enrich uranium, but they may well be satisified with simply having the capacity to enrich uranium to weapons grade quality. They may consider that enough of a deterent, without having to go the extra step to actually weaponizing the enriched uranium. So, the end game will ultimately have to be containment and inspections, assuming we have a diplomatically-skilled president.

 

[Cancel7]

Very perceptive.

That's actually partly why I wrote this: to clarify in my own mind what exactly the Bush admin and wingnut radio is misleading/exaggerating about - and to understant that the end game is probably that Iran will be able to enrich uranium, but they may well be satisified with simply having the capacity to enrich uranium to weapons grade quality. They may consider that enough of a deterent, without having to go the extra step to actually weaponizing the enriched uranium. So, the end game will ultimately have to be containment and inspections, assuming we have a diplomatically-skilled president.

Why do that when you can burn children to death? You're very boring Cypress.

 

[Damocles]

I don't think we'd invade Iran. I think it would be bombing with government targets in an attempt to weaken the government and open a revolution among the masses.

 

[Cypress]

Here's a really interesting opinion piece on what would happen after we strike Iran. And there's going to be alot of civilian causalties.

"Let us suppose that the Bush-Cheney administration answers the neocons' prayer and does indeed bomb Iran sometime soon. The plan apparently involves more than the destruction of nuclear facilities, replicating Israel's attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. (That attack, by the way was condemned by the whole world, including a furious President Ronald Reagan). It includes an all-out assault on the Iranian political and religious leadership. Government buildings and officials' residences will be targeted, guaranteeing collateral damage. Since Iran is a highly complex society, and its government widely unpopular, there may well be some local support for a "shock and awe" campaign. We know that the administration has cultivated ties with the Mujahadeen Khalq (even though they remain on the State Department's terrorist list) and the Pakistan-based Balochi separatist group Jundallah (the Party of God). These among other organizations will get their marching orders amid the "creative chaos" produced by the attack. There can be no large deployment of U.S. troops in Iran, unless they evacuate from Afghanistan and Iraq which is unlikely"

continued at:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6025

Jesus Christ.

Think progress actually has a clip of a prominent neocon litererally saying that he "prayed" we would bomb iran.

Why? There's no need to at this point, and there's no evidence the iranians have anything close to a viable weapons-grade uranium enrichment program.

I'm seeing shades of the iraq war propaganda here: totally exaggerate and mislead on the facts.

 

[Cancel7]

I don't think we'd invade Iran. I think it would be bombing with government targets in an attempt to weaken the government and open a revolution among the masses.

Of course, we have no troops to send to Iran, so yes, it's going to be a massive air campaign, with a high toll of civilian casulaties. And the only "revolution" we are going to start is a f'ing explosion that will ignite the entire region, spread to no one yet knows exactly where...and incur blowback in many forms, one of which will be, Americans will die, here and all over the world. I'm not the type who places a higher value on American lives, but for those who are, wake up.

 

[Cancel7]

Jesus Christ.

Think progress actually has a clip of a prominent neocon litererally saying that he "prayed" we would bomb iran.

Why? There's no need to at this point, and there's no evidence the iranians have anything close to a viable weapons-grade uranium enrichment program.

I'm seeing shades of the iraq war propaganda here: totally exaggerate and mislead on the facts.

Anyone whom is "praying" for the bombing of any country, might think they are praying to God, but that is not who is receiving those kind of "prayers".

 

[Cypress]

I don't think we'd invade Iran. I think it would be bombing with government targets in an attempt to weaken the government and open a revolution among the masses.

bombing the iranian goverment would have the opposite effect. Most iranians would rally to the government, or at a minimum become openly hostile to the united states.

I may hate the bush adminstration, but if Canada invaded us with the intent of overthrowing our government, I would rally to our government's defense. You underestimate nationalism Damo.

 

[Damocles]

bombing the iranian goverment would have the opposite effect. Most iranians would rally to the government, or at a minimum become openly hostile to the united states.

I may hate the bush adminstration, but if Canada invaded us with the intent of overthrowing our government, I would rally to our government's defense. You underestimate nationalism Damo.

I'm not saying that it would be my plan, I am saying what I think would happen.

I personally don't think Saddam's weapons were WMD, even when they were potent. I spoke long about that before we even went to war and told you that WMD wasn't really what it was about.

I don't personally underestimate nationalism, I think you overestimate those who are planning such attacks. Surgical strikes to begin to take out the centrifuges and military targets, a few bombs will "stray" and some government officials will be "accidentally" killed. The Press will dwell on the fact that kids were in the house, people will get pissed.

This is my best estimate of what will happen if we do decide to bomb Iran.

 

[Cypress]

I'm not saying that it would be my plan, I am saying what I think would happen.

I personally don't think Saddam's weapons were WMD, even when they were potent. I spoke long about that before we even went to war and told you that WMD wasn't really what it was about.

I don't personally underestimate nationalism, I think you overestimate those who are planning such attacks. Surgical strikes to begin to take out the centrifuges and military targets, a few bombs will "stray" and some government officials will be "accidentally" killed. The Press will dwell on the fact that kids were in the house, people will get pissed.

This is my best estimate of what will happen if we do decide to bomb Iran.

What we have to decide is whether or not we will tolerate Iran having a uranium enrichment program, for civilian fuel use. If they abide by their obligations under the NPT, they certainly have a right to it, as a legal matter.

That's the issue. Bush and the wingnuts are painting it as though Iran already does have a nuclear weapons program. Obviously, to stoke up fear. There's no credible evidence of that. What Bush doesn't say, is that he (and many others) simply don't want Iran to have the technical and industrial capacity to enrich uranium - even for civilian fuel use.

Bombing will only convince the Iranians that a WMD capacity is what they need for deterence.

In the end, the only realistic solution, is to let the iranians see if they can build and maintain a viable and reliable civilian nuclear enrichment capability (it's yet to be proven they can even do this), but insist on strict protocols and inspections in accordance with their NPT obligations.

 

[Damocles]

I was not giving an opinion on whether Iran should have nuclear power capabilities. I think they need it, to tell the truth.

I was giving my best estimate from an intel perspective and what I have seen and what is deployed in the area. I have even told you what to watch for so that you will know without a doubt that it is going to happen.

 

[Cypress]

Oh, and one final thought:

It would help if we, the United States, complied with our obligations under the NPT, before demanding that other nations comply with the NPT. It makes us look like hypocrites, and is a diplomatically weak position to bargain from.

 

[uscitizen]

I don't think we'd invade Iran. I think it would be bombing with government targets in an attempt to weaken the government and open a revolution among the masses.

yeah like we have not created enough chaos and mayhem in the gulf....
sounds like lieberman. A desire to create chaos and mayhem throught the Gulf area and then whine when it backfires or spills over onto Israel.