Iran's Nuclear Program May Have Military Dimensions

[quadraphonics]

On topic. A well researched thought provoking article by Edward S. Herman (who?) and David Peterson (independent writer and researcher - Chicago, USA) pointing out the obvious but ignored, double standards at play regarding NATO, the NPT, media complicity and the deliberate and dishonest targeting of Iran as a real"threat".

I notice that the article never addresses the question of what, if any, threat Iran poses. It is taken as a premise that Iran does not pose any threat, and the article spends all its time discussing how Iran is treated and portrayed. Which is fine so far as it goes, but seems to me to be jumping the gun.

If you're going to write an entire article on how Iran is misconstrued, it ought to include some baseline discussion of what a reasonable portrayal of Iran ought to look like. But all we get is the boilerplate stuff about there being no evidence of an active (i.e., since 2003) weapons program, and how Ahmedinejad only hopes that Israel will collapse (as opposed to threatening to attack). No mention of links with regional militant groups, nor Iran's history of international terrorism, nor relations with the Arab states, etc. Although we are reminded that Iran "urgently needs [nuclear] weapons as part of its self-defense" and would be "crazy" not to pursue them (a point I often see made amidst assertions that Iran is not pursuing weapons, to my ongoing chagrin).

Instead, we are treated to a sweeping indictment of Western Hegemony, Israeli nukes, and Cold War episodes in Central America, all phrased in the most prejudicial possible terms. This is propaganda for believers; not the sort of hard analysis that will stir genuine introspection in the general population.

[superstring01]

An interesting article in Slate.com

Why Wait To Disarm Iran?
There's no possible advantage in waiting until Tehran has nukes.
By Christopher Hitchens, Slate.com
Posted Monday, Oct. 19, 2009, at 11:15 AM ET



A contradiction must be faced by those of us who don't especially like the propaganda name neoconservative but who wish that there was a useful term for someone who favors a robust American attitude toward totalitarian and aggressive states. This contradiction often takes the form of wanting to emphasize a threat without overstating it. One can begin by viewing this argument from its opposite side. In the recent past, extremely nasty and dangerous one-party or one-man regimes in Serbia and Iraq have made real trouble for their neighbors and been a nightmare to their "own" people and have mocked all the canons of international law but have been considered by many commentators as too risky to confront. Go look this up, and you will discover that those who didn't want to confront Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein would always stress the awesome power of violence that they had at their command. If NATO bombed the Serbian positions around Sarajevo, say, it would unleash a monster of reaction that would draw a Russian intervention on the side of Belgrade, trigger a massive backlash throughout the Balkans, drown the region in bloodshed and "a wider war," and all that. Likewise, a military move against Saddam Hussein would incite him to saturate our troops with chemical weapons, ignite the oilfields, destroy Israel, inflame the "Arab street," and overthrow every friendly Middle Eastern government, etc., etc. Those of us who wanted to get rid of these hideous governments were bombarded with arguments that said, in effect, they are not only a threat but actually a lethal threat, and their forces are made up of people who are 10 feet tall. The contradiction cut both ways, in other words.

So, much kudos to David Ignatius of the Washington Post for his column last Friday, in which he restates the findings of a little-known trade publication with the arcane name of Nucleonics Week. To quote directly, the article reports that there might be some reason to think that:

Iran's supply of low-enriched uranium—the potential feed-stock for nuclear bombs—appears to have certain "impurities" that "could cause centrifuges to fail" if the Iranians try to boost it to weapons grade.

Among other things, this could explain why Iran is cynically negotiating to send its low-enriched uranium to other states, such as France and Russia, to have it enhanced to a higher grade. Such a move, of course, would also be compatible with a "peaceful" program, if anyone is left who believes that this is all the Islamic republic really wants.

So backward has the theocracy made its wretched country that it is even vulnerable to sanctions on refined petroleum, for heaven's sake. Unlike neighboring secular Turkey, which has almost no oil but is almost qualified—at least economically—to join the European Union, Iran is as much a pistachio-and-rug-exporting country as it was when the sadistic medievalists first seized power. So it wouldn't be surprising in the least if a regime that has no genuine respect for science and no internal self-critical feedback had screwed up its rogue acquisition of modern weaponry. A system in which nothing really works except the military and the police will, like North Korea, end up producing somewhat spastic missiles and low-yield nukes, as well.

But spastic missiles and low-yield nukes can still ruin the whole day of a neighboring state, as well as make a travesty of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and such international laws and treaties as are left to us. Thus, if it is true that Iran is not as close to "break-out" as we have sometimes feared, should that not make our deliberations more urgent rather than less? Might it not mean, in effect, that now is a better time to disarm the mullahs than later?

Remember that Iran acquired a good deal of its original materiel on the black market, buying through proxies and using other means of deception, before anyone knew what was going on. This in turn means that it would be very much harder to acquire replacement supplies, in the face of continuing invigilation from the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and several intelligence services. Logically, then, even a minor disruption or dislocation of one of the existing key Iranian sites could have the effect of retarding the whole tenuous program for quite a while. And in the meanwhile, the internal clock of Iranian society is running against the continuation of outright dictatorship. So who should be scared of whom?

I have never been present for any discussion of any measures that could even thinkably be taken against Tehran that does not focus obsessively and exclusively on the possibly calamitous outcomes. Israel hits Iran and—well, you fill in the rest. The target sites are, anyway, too much dispersed and too deeply buried. You know how it goes. Apparently, nothing can be done that does not make a bad situation worse. It is as if there could be a worse outcome than the nuclear armament of a lawless messianic state that tore up every agreement it signed even as it bought further time while signing it.

In that case, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and many others should never have said that such an eventuality was unacceptable. They should have said that there were some conditions under which it was acceptable, and also clearly specified what those conditions were. If there's no saber in the scabbard, then at least don't make the vulgar mistake of rattling it.

Against this, we are at least entitled to consider the idea that a decaying regime that is bluffing and buying (or rather stealing) time on weapons of mass destruction is in a condition that makes this the best moment to do at least something to raise the cost of the lawlessness and to slow down and sabotage the preparations. Or might it be better to wait and to fight later on more equal terms? Just asking.

~String

[StrawDog]

I notice that the article never addresses the question of what, if any, threat Iran poses. It is taken as a premise that Iran does not pose any threat, and the article spends all its time discussing how Iran is treated and portrayed.

One can assume that the authors do not consider Iran a credible threat, due to various reasons, including Iran's track record regarding aggression, which is of course nil for the last century plus. Unlike the track record of the implicated foes. As the article is headed, the topic is the construction of a threat, which is then pointed out.

Which is fine so far as it goes, but seems to me to be jumping the gun.

Yes, that is a valid point.

If you're going to write an entire article on how Iran is misconstrued, it ought to include some baseline discussion of what a reasonable portrayal of Iran ought to look like.

Yes, a broader background POV would be helpful.

But all we get is the boilerplate stuff about there being no evidence of an active (i.e., since 2003) weapons program, and how Ahmedinejad only hopes that Israel will collapse (as opposed to threatening to attack).

And all utterly valid and factual, and thus evidence for said construction of a threat.

No mention of links with regional militant groups, nor Iran's history of international terrorism, nor relations with the Arab states, etc.

Unfortunately this history (limited) does not make Iran the dangerous warmongering threat it is accused of, links with regional militant groups is perhaps in the interest of self defense, but clear evidence implicating the US in widespread subvertive activity is provided. Not forgetting the US inspired installation of the Shah, undoubtedly still a sore point.

Although we are reminded that Iran "urgently needs [nuclear] weapons as part of its self-defense" and would be "crazy" not to pursue them (a point I often see made amidst assertions that Iran is not pursuing weapons, to my ongoing chagrin).

What would you do if the neighborhood bully kept threatening you? Carry a stick? Note the clear hypocrisy of those accusing Iran of a non existant nuclear program, who are actually the biggest violators of the NPT and known proliferators of nuclear arms.

Instead, we are treated to a sweeping indictment of Western Hegemony, Israeli nukes, and Cold War episodes in Central America, all phrased in the most prejudicial possible terms.

And all indisputable realities. The track record is available for all to see. Not a pretty sight.

This is propaganda for believers; not the sort of hard analysis that will stir genuine introspection in the general population.

No, this is a good,educated, hard factual analysis with plenty follow up referencing that should stir up introspection. I appreciate your taking the time to review this.

[StrawDog]

An interesting article in Slate.com
~String

Interesting indeed.

Against this, we are at least entitled to consider the idea that a decaying regime that is bluffing and buying (or rather stealing) time on weapons of mass destruction is in a condition that makes this the best moment to do at least something to raise the cost of the lawlessness and to slow down and sabotage the preparations. Or might it be better to wait and to fight later on more equal terms? Just asking.

Hm. He is toying with the viability of opening a Pandoras box which neither he nor anyone else can see the outcome of. Even though we can clearly see the disasters that are Afghanistan and Iraq.

I would also have to ask what he he considers we should do about the regimes in (just in case) North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Yemen, etc. or are all things not equal?

[iceaura]

Why Wait To Disarm Iran?

How about because you have signed treaties and international law that require you? allied opinion and interests, and the karmic debts of thirty years of dicking around in this arena with bad motives and lethally destructive amorality?

A contradiction must be faced by those of us who don't especially like the propaganda name neoconservative but who wish that there was a useful term for someone who favors a robust American attitude toward totalitarian and aggressive states.

One reasonable if shopworn term would be "warmonger". Another might be "imperialist". "Jackass" and "dumbfuck" come to mind.

The lack of self-awareness, of perspective, in that kind of punditry still amazes, however familiar.

In what goofball worldview is Iran an "aggressive" state? How does a US neocon pundit feel justified in calling for the US - by far the most aggressive and violent state in the region, with a history of making nuclear threats against Iran specifically (on top of actual political monkeywrenching, terrorist support, military black ops, blowback engendering screwups) and a full military deployment including nuclear capability already on Iran's borders - to "do something" about Iran's irresponsible behavior?

[superstring01]

How does a US neocon pundit feel justified in calling for the US

He's not a neocon. He's a liberal. His only conservative positions are concerning Iraq and Iran. That's about it.

~String

[iceaura]

He's not a neocon. He's a liberal. His only conservative positions are concerning Iraq and Iran.

And they aren't "conservative", of course. Any more than his take on Mother Teresa was "liberal".

Pick a label. He seems to agree that he is talking like a neocon in this area, anyway.

[S.A.M.]

Hithens has been deep in bed with the Zionists since he discovered he has Jewish ancestors. You can see him toeing the AIPAC line very faithfully since 2002.

[superstring01]

And they aren't "conservative", of course. Any more than his take on Mother Teresa was "liberal".

A conservative is as a conservative does. Neocons are conservative, regardless of their flawed ideologies. And his view of Mother Teresa is inconsequential to his overall liberal-ness. Scratch the surface, and underneath you find a great deal of unpleasant things about Mother Teresa, especially in how she ran and dolled our her services. Fighting tooth-and-nail to prevent condom usage and to ban abortions also comes to mind in her litany of idiotic campaigns. Opposing her, on any level, is good common sense.

Pick a label. He seems to agree that he is talking like a neocon in this area, anyway.

In this, and only this, particular subject. On every other issue, he is in lock-step with every other left-leaning libertarian.

Hithens has been deep in bed with the Zionists since he discovered he has Jewish ancestors. You can see him toeing the AIPAC line very faithfully since 2002.

You're clueless. Hitchens has little pleasant to say about Zionism and has never shied away from criticizing Israel and Israeli expansionism:

Hitchens has described Zionism as being based on "the initial demagogic lie (actually two lies) that a land without a people needs a people without a land. And he went even further saying "Zionism is a form of Bourgeoisie Nationalism" when debating the Jewish Tradition with Martin Amis at a Town hall function in Pennsylvania "[44] Hitchens supports Israel's right to exist, but has argued that

Israel doesn't "give up" anything by abandoning religious expansionism in the West Bank and Gaza. It does itself a favor, because it confronts the internal clerical and chauvinist forces which want to instate a theocracy for Jews, and because it abandons a scheme which is doomed to fail in the worst possible way. The so-called "security" question operates in reverse, because as I may have said already, only a moral and political idiot would place Jews in a settlement in Gaza in the wild belief that this would make them more safe. Of course this hard-headed and self-interested solution of withdrawal would not satisfy the jihadists. But one isn't seeking to placate them. One is seeking to destroy and discredit them. At the present moment, they operate among an occupied and dispossessed and humiliated people, who are forced by Sharon's logic to live in a close yet ghettoised relationship to the Jewish centers of population. Try and design a more lethal and rotten solution than that, and see what you come up with.

Pick up something, written by him, and then come back and talk about what he believed.

~String

[superstring01]

More on Hitchen's view of Zionism:

FrontPage Magazine, December 11 2003 (see that SAM, 2003):

Full Article: Here

Hitchens:
The Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot agreement preceded the Palestine Mandate, and planned for a disastrous partition of the region which we are still (or those of us who know about it) compelled to regret. If you give the most cursory attention to the writings of Herzl and Nordau and other founders of the Zionist movement, or if you read the memoirs of Yitzhak Rabin closer to our own day, you will notice at once that they knew that a confrontation with the Arab inhabitants of Palestine was unavoidable. This was because they wanted their land, and wanted it without its inhabitants. The historic mistake - even if we agree that there was no ethical error involved - was the assumption that in time the Arabs would simply get used to this expropriation. To describe this is a mistake is of course a colossal understatement as well as a punishable euphemism.

The theft of land continues to this moment in the specific as well as the general sense: a farmer whose great-grandfather worked the same olive grove can be evicted without notice to make room for a settlement or a road or a wall, and told that such a flagrant confiscation is justifiable because he is not a Jew. This is a scandal, and its roots are inscribed in Israeli law, and I have never seen it justified. The only actual justification offered is that god awarded the land to one tribe a good many years ago, and of course this appalling racist and messianic delusion - employed by Israel’s Prime Minister without apology - only makes a terrible situation even worse.

~String

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, now see where Hitch was during the Iran debate this year.

Or check the guest list for every neocon bash since 2002

There is only so much that words can make up for actions

edit: wow they removed his name from the list, thats weird

You can see him listed in the original list here:
http://mondoweiss.net/2009/10/goyim-...pply.html#hide

[superstring01]

You're a liar SAM. Again. You weren't discussing his views on Iran, nuclear proliferation or terrorism. We are discussing your claims that he is a Zionist. That was a lie, and one which you failed to support on any grounds OTHER than the fact that he happens to have ONE political view in common with Israel.

Shit, I might as well call you a Zionist since you believe in the law of gravity, and I'm willing to bet that they do to. YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON! YOU ARE A ZIONIST!

Yeah, now see where Hitch was during the Iran debate this year.

Duh. We already covered this. He believes that the west, the USA in particular, have an obligation to stop tyrannical regimes from achieving nuclear status. You, restating this fact, proves nothing more than what was already mentioned.

Or check the guest list for every neocon bash since 2002

No. That's your obligation. Mentioning it proves nothing unless you can support that claim. So, pray tell, where are these guest lists?

There is only so much that words can make up for actions

What actions has he taken? His entire life is words, brainiac. All he does is deliver speeches and write articles and books.

He was passionately anti-torture (having volunteered to be waterboarded himself). He's squarely an American libertarian-leftist on almost every issue, except nuclear proliferation and terrorism. And he speaks out, REGULARLY, against Israeli expansionism and Zionism. Pick up an article by him on this issue and read it.

~String

[S.A.M.]

Ya I saw the waterboarding video on youtube. Good for him, having it done on himself.

Maybe he's just confused and drunk, who knows?

But he's very much a willing participant in ZOG and since there is some heavy retroactive editing of the guest lists going on at source, I'll just recommend you keep your eyes peeled for such events in the future. The above anti-Iran piece you quoted is a good indication of where his loyalties lie. Besides, he's a favourite of Geoff which automatically makes him an invalid authority.

[superstring01]

But he's very much a willing participant in ZOG and since there is some heavy retroactive editing of the guest lists going on at source, I'll just recommend you keep your eyes peeled for such events in the future. The above anti-Iran piece you quoted is a good indication of where his loyalties lie. Besides, he's a favourite of Geoff which automatically makes him an invalid authority.

The existence of the state of Israel, and the acceptance thereof, does not make him a "Zionist sympathizer". It makes him a realist. While I don't agree with his approach on the two-state solution (I think that both states should be combined, renamed "Canaan", placed under international control, have a secular constitution, etc), his views on the matter aren't exactly the stuff of a Zionist or an extremist.

As for "keeping my eyes peeled", I'd say, it's incumbent upon you to prove your point, no on me. If you have something to say, or prove, then do it. Don't dance around the issue, making excuses, for you lack of ability to prove your own points.

~String

[S.A.M.]

I would and I did try, by showing you how the list was altered immediately upon realising it was. I can't really show he was present in lists if for some unfathomable reason they are deleting his name from them.

But, its a free country, I indicated what my problem with his position was, being in bed with the zoggers. You are certainly free to disregard this. Its your country in the shitter, after all.

[superstring01]

I would and I did try, by showing you how the list was altered immediately upon realising it was. I can't really show he was present in lists if for some unfathomable reason they are deleting his name from them.

How do you know his name is on the list?
How do you know his name was deleted?
Do you REALLY expect me to just take your word for the fact that he spoke at a conservative event?

And granting that, the fact that he speaks at conservative events guarantees that he speaks on the topic of terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Do you REALLY think they have an anti-zionist, former Trotskyist, left-libertarian die-hard atheist come in and talk about Bush and Reagan (two presidents he decries), the good of conservatism and other such nonsense?

No. He's a paid speaker who works a circuit. They give him a hundred grand to come in and talk on specific policy issue and then shove him off the stage before geniuses like Sarah Palin (who he's called a liar and a moron) take the stage.

I indicated what my problem with his position was, being in bed with the zoggers. You are certainly free to disregard this. Its your country in the shitter, after all.

Yeah. In the shitter. Good to see you resort to stupidity when intellect fails you.

You make a point. Lie about the point. Fail to support another point. Claim the dog ate your homework. Ask for magnanimity on the matter and faith that you are telling the truth and then, failing that, move the issue onto . . . the USA being in the shitter?

You're clueless. Really. Do you even know how to make a point? How can anybody even respect you? We're discussing Hitchens being a Zionist (or rather NOT being a Zionist) and failing to prove your point you flail like a little girl, throw a tantrum and say that the USA is in the shitter. As if I should be distracted by that issue rather than the fact that you are a blatant liar who's failed to prove her own points.

Spare me SAM.

~String

[S.A.M.]

I see you're another one who doesn't follow the conversation. I supported my claims with links. You can either believe them or not. Hitchens is hardly shy about what he does and says, I simply compare what he says to what he does [as I do for everyone else] and find it strange that a so called libertarian invariably ends up as a speaker at the major pro-Israel neocon events. I admit I am baffled why his name is now not present on the Israel-US relationship meeting website, I posted the link from Phil Weiss to support its original presence there, and I really do not want to play guessing games about wtf is going on with Wurmser and Oren and Co. and what khichdi they are cooking up now and why Hitchens is no longer publicly displayed as being there.

Thats all btw. Like I said, he has after vicofeously arguing against the Iraq war until 2001 jumped wholeheartedly into Yam Israel Chai since 2002 while publkicly defending the media represented "only democracy in the Middle East" through every ZOG-led public event.

I don't guess at his motivations, I simply observe his actions and the difference between what he writes in Vanity Fair and his Hoover institution funded events.

[superstring01]

I admit I am baffled why his name is now not present on the Israel-US relationship meeting website, I posted the link from Phil Weiss to support its original presence there, and I really do not want to play guessing games about wtf is going on with Wurmser and Oren and Co. and what khichdi they are cooking up now and why Hitchens is no longer publicly displayed as being there.

Well, for starters, it sounds like you're making stuff up. Maybe that's why "his name has mysteriously disappeard from the list." But ONLY his name!!!

As for his appearance at the event, do you have a transcript of what he said? I don't. Hitchens NEVER edits his ideas for anybody. Ever. He's as blunt as a baseball bat. The event you posted was on the changing relationship between the US and Israel. Think it's possible he talked about the relationship between the US and Israel a bit? Because believing that Israel has the right to exist does not make him a Zionist. That said, until you can show me what he said, I'll take his presence there as being what it has always been for: contrasting points of view. That's part of the entertainment, SAM.

I don't guess at his motivations, I simply observe his actions and the difference between what he writes in Vanity Fair and his Hoover institution funded events.

And your observations are wrong. Unsupported and mostly made up because you're too afraid to admit you're wrong now and lack the spine to admit you've made a mistake.

~String

[S.A.M.]

Did you click on the link to Phil Weiss site where his name is discussed in the event? Or are you intimating that I have editorial control [like you do at sciforums] and have modified the discussion at mondoweiss to make my point?

And your observations are wrong.

Huh? Which ones? Where he chastised Clinton for Iraq in 2001 then jumped into the neocon seat in 2002? heh! On his anti-Islamist stand ever since he discovered his grandmothers name was Levi not Lynn? On his anti-Hanuka post before and his passionate support for the "western civilisation" in Israel now? On his visiting scholarship at Hoover where his co-fantasist neocon buddies all masturbate to war on Iran?

[superstring01]

Did you click on the link to Phil Weiss site where his name is discussed in the event? Or are you intimating that I have editorial control [like you do at sciforums] and have modified the discussion at mondoweiss to make my point?

I read the Weiss site. It said he appeared there. Was slated to talk somewhere between 11am-12:30pm. That's about it. No transcript is provided for what he said. Moreover, had it occurred to you that the Hudson Institute took his name off their list because he may not have actually appeared as scheduled? That's a guess, but since neither of us knows if he actually spoke, or what he may have said had he spoken, all you have is: Hitchens may or may not have spoken at a single event that discussed the changing relationship between the US and Israel.

SHOCKING!!!!

The man may have spoken on a topic of his expertice! (but we don't know, since we don't even know if he showed for the event, or what he may have even said had he appeard. . . but you get the picture) BURN HIM! HE'S A ZIONIST!!!

Huh? Which ones? Where he chastised Clinton for Iraq in 2001 then jumped into the neocon seat in 2002? heh!

And in this you demonstrate your utter and total ignorance. 9/11 occurred. Read a few of his writings on how it changed his views. Seriously, how can you even continue a discussion when you haven't even read anything the guy's written especially on the events of 9/11?

~String